More Questions for Christians

[Drich]

So waves and tides... None existent for at least a 10,000 year period? Let me ask is it just localized in just this area or does the moons gravity not create waves and tides for the whole planet?

I know you're enjoying yourself, but do you realize there's a huge range of options between "no tides at all ever," and "tides large enough to heft a whale carcass off of the beach and back into the water"?

Because, as I just pointed out, and you seemed to ignore, when whales beach themselves, usually they're still within contact with the ocean... just never sufficient quantities of it to provide them buoyancy. Despite being buoyant, whales are still heavy creatures that need a lot more water than the tides can provide. If tidal motion was sufficient to carry a whale we wouldn't get beached whales at all.

uhhh, no.

The tides and waves do not have to move whole whales.. Just their bones once the carcass decays.. Now it has gone from thousands of pounds to just tens of lbs or even ounces.. (Because whales werent the only thing they found in tact.)

But that's not the case. There are several dozen piles of fossilized bones that are completely undisturbed. Infact they are is such good order they can tell the whales decomposed upside down. This can only happen one way. That's if the area was completely covered in water, they bones sank to the bottom and were quickly covered in silt.
The problem with that is, according to 'science' that region was out of the water before the triassic period, which means the animals found would not have been in thier 'evolved state' 300 million years ago.
Which leaves a great flood

because delicate/loose bones on the shore could not have survived intact. The fact that there are a few dozen piles of intact fossils like this means they did not die and fossilize on an active shore line.

Which points back to Flood, or no tidal forces what so ever or even waves... On a sea shore.

[Esquilax]

uhhh, no.

The tides and waves do not have to move whole whales.. Just their bones once the carcass decays.. Now it has gone from thousands of pounds to just tens of lbs or even ounces.. (Because whales werent the only thing they found in tact.)

Hey Drich? Whale bones don't float. They're heavy. These things weigh in tonnes, not pounds. You have no idea of the scale of what you're describing.

But that's not the case. There are several dozen piles of fossilized bones that are completely undisturbed. Infact they are is such good order they can tell the whales decomposed upside down. This can only happen one way. That's if the area was completely covered in water, they bones sank to the bottom and were quickly covered in silt.

What is your education in paleontology, that you can say the only way it could happen is yours?

The problem with that is, according to 'science' that region was out of the water before the triassic period, which means the animals found would not have been in thier 'evolved state' 300 million years ago.
Which leaves a great flood

Some of the area was out of the ocean. Do try to keep up.

Also? That's a false dichotomy. Perhaps a giant hurricane blew them all onto the shore. It's no more physically impossible than a worldwide flood. Besides, we know a great flood never occurred because the geological column does not support the idea; evidently the whales got there some other way, but you're not going to be able to point to this single thing, even if we don't know exactly how they got there, and say therefore Noah's flood. Far stronger evidence contradicts that claim, and no matter how strongly you appeal to ignorance, an unknown is not going to trump real, verifiable facts.

because delicate/loose bones on the shore could not have survived intact. The fact that there are a few dozen piles of intact fossils like this means they did not die and fossilize on an active shore line.

Which points back to Flood, or no tidal forces what so ever or even waves... On a sea shore.

Why is it that you think an assertion from you, a man with no education in a relevant field, carries more weight than the evidence based reportage of the actual paleontologists who were there? Who are you to gainsay them?

[Piscinin]

2. Do you believe jonah really was able to live in a fish and survive?

yes

Ohhh ffs, because a fairytale book told you so?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

[Drich]

Hey Drich? Whale bones don't float. They're heavy. These things weigh in tonnes, not pounds. You have no idea of the scale of what you're describing.

http://www.sbnature.org/exhibitions/234.html
7700 lbs for a baleen whale sport. That the whole thing combined.. Granted there are peices and part that weigh hundreds of lbs, but there are also bits and peices that you could put in your pocket..

Again, if they were on the beach I have no doubt some of the larger portions would remain, but we are not talking about just the large bones. Whole Skeletons have been found this includes the small bits and peices.. Not to mention the thing you seem all to anxious to over look is the baleen whale is not the only marine mamal found. Much smaller animals (Sea sloth) was also found intact. So again no errosion from tidal forces are possiable, if these fossils are indeed intact..

But that's not the case. There are several dozen piles of fossilized bones that are completely undisturbed. Infact they are is such good order they can tell the whales decomposed upside down. This can only happen one way. That's if the area was completely covered in water, they bones sank to the bottom and were quickly covered in silt.

What is your education in paleontology, that you can say the only way it could happen is yours?

You sound like a desperate Christian trying to hang on to what they believe in faith despite the facts..

The problem with that is, according to 'science' that region was out of the water before the triassic period, which means the animals found would not have been in thier 'evolved state' 300 million years ago.
Which leaves a great flood

Some of the area was out of the ocean. Do try to keep up.

Yes the bit that is not covered in salt/mineral deposits. Which can be found several hundred miles inland. The portion we are discussing resides 1400 to 6000 ft above sea level. Which means the salt deposits can be traced back to when that region was underwater... Before the triassic period.

Also? That's a false dichotomy. Perhaps a giant hurricane blew them all onto the shore.

1400 to 6000 ft above sea level? 4 dozen different times over a '10,000 year' span??
Who says your not a man of GREAT Faith???

It's no more physically impossible than a worldwide flood.

what makes a world wide flood impossiable?

Besides, we know a great flood never occurred because the geological column does not support the idea;

That's not true at all. In the case of a world wide flood the evidence is here, we just don't want to acknoweledge it (Whales found on a desert mesa for instance)

evidently the whales got there some other way, but you're not going to be able to point to this single thing, even if we don't know exactly how they got there, and say therefore Noah's flood.

One thing's for sure science has no answers for us if what we 'know' to be true is indeed true.

Far stronger evidence contradicts that claim, and no matter how strongly you appeal to ignorance, an unknown is not going to trump real, verifiable facts.

Your the one ignoring the facts sport. like for instance how fossils are found/the undisturbed nature in which ALL of the skellotons were found, The fact that where they were found is at least 1/4 mile above sea level, they were found on an ancient sea bed 200 million years older than they themselves can be. The fact that there are dozens of examples ranging from something the size of a man to something larger than a bus... ALL Intact, means they were not deposited on a sea shore 1/4 mile above sea level.

Your statement reeks of desperation in how youre down playing facts, Now I know how you guys 'feel' When you have some poor faith driven believer on his heels. The roles have reversed. I am the one speaking from fact and you and minnie are the one who are dealing in faith.

Why is it that you think an assertion from you, a man with no education in a relevant field, carries more weight than the evidence based reportage of the actual paleontologists who were there? Who are you to gainsay them?

Again Common sense sport. a Life time living near the beach has proven one thing. If multi ton boulders from a Jetty/Sea wall can be moved miles down a beach during a cat 1 hurricane with just a 10ft storm surge, bones weighing ounces or lbs or even hundreds of lbs don't stand a chance, even in the course of normal tidal flow.

Oh, and not to mention at the very least the area we are speaking about is at minimum 1/4 MILE ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE SEA!!!

Look up the term Mesa, in that defination it should say a mesa is larger than a butte but smaller than a plateau..
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&...9006,d.eXY

The Atacama Is a Desert Plateau
The coastal chain hovers around 5,000 feet (1,500 metres) or so in elevation with individual peaks reaching to 6,560 feet (2,000 metres). There is no coastal plain; through much of their extent the mountains terminate abruptly at the sea in cliffs, some of them higher than 1,600 feet (500 metres), making communication difficult between the coastal ports and the interior. In the interior a raised depression extends north and south and forms the high Tamarugal Plain at an elevation of more than 3,000 feet (900 metres). Farther to the east in the western outliers of the Andes, preceded by the Cordillera Domeyko, there are numerous volcanic cones, some exceeding 16,000 feet (4,900 metres) in elevation. Along Chile’s northeastern frontier with Argentina and Bolivia extends the Atacama Plateau, which reaches elevations of 13,000 feet (4,000 metres).
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...ama-Desert

Again the last time this region was at or below sea level was before the triassic period which means the animals found there could not have existed.

I know you are speaking from faith here but do try and open your mind to the facts one in a while.

---

2. Do you believe jonah really was able to live in a fish and survive?

yes

Ohhh ffs, because a fairytale book told you so?

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

Since your new here i will give you a chance to back out. maybe look at the beating e-lax is taking trying to defend what he thought was a sure thing, and ask yourself are you really ready to do this? Can you really put up an arguement as well as he can?

If your starting with a taunt, then the answer your looking for is no.

[Piscinin]

No Drich, the question was also why not.

---

Let me be clear, there's absolutely no taunt there.

The devil is closing your mind, please open your eyes. Of course you have to really accept it with an open heart. If you still don't believe it, you haven't opened your heart the way you should.

You're living in darkness and you'll be punished if you continue with the devil's ways.

[Godscreated]

My conclusion is anyone who plays with himself is desperate and will say many crazy things.
GC

I suspect it is impossible for your delusion to allow your brain to actually consider how crazy it is that a man lived inside a whales gut for 3 days. I mean really think, man - inside whale - 3 days.

Don't you have just a tiny weeny inkling of doubt that this is simply not possible?

Hey newbe, don't you think you should read what I wrote before you go putting words in my mouth. Hey, somethin' else a whale is not a fish, seems to me you have some studying to do before you get into arguments here.

GC

[Esquilax]

Hey Drich? Whale bones don't float. They're heavy. These things weigh in tonnes, not pounds. You have no idea of the scale of what you're describing.

http://www.sbnature.org/exhibitions/234.html
7700 lbs for a baleen whale sport. That the whole thing combined.. Granted there are peices and part that weigh hundreds of lbs, but there are also bits and peices that you could put in your pocket..

You do understand that a ton is about two thousand pounds, right?

Again, if they were on the beach I have no doubt some of the larger portions would remain, but we are not talking about just the large bones. Whole Skeletons have been found this includes the small bits and peices.. Not to mention the thing you seem all to anxious to over look is the baleen whale is not the only marine mamal found. Much smaller animals (Sea sloth) was also found intact. So again no errosion from tidal forces are possiable, if these fossils are indeed intact..

Or plenty of other possibilities. Let's not pretend that you know anything about how this was set up, after all.

You sound like a desperate Christian trying to hang on to what they believe in faith despite the facts..

I'm just asking you what your level of education is, that you can make the declarative statement that there was only one way this could happen. Mockery doesn't answer the question, and given your evasion I'm going to have to assume that you have no relevant education at all, and are thus talking out of your ass.

Your uninformed opinion doesn't trump mine just because you said it first, Drich. At least mine aligns with the views of the people who actually are educated in this field. How can you possibly have more information with which to gainsay them, and if you aren't contradicting them based on additional evidence that you have and they don't, then why the hell should anyone pay attention to you?

Yes the bit that is not covered in salt/mineral deposits. Which can be found several hundred miles inland. The portion we are discussing resides 1400 to 6000 ft above sea level. Which means the salt deposits can be traced back to when that region was underwater... Before the triassic period.

Again, relevant educational level is? And if it's zero, why should I believe your conclusions over that of the sciences?

1400 to 6000 ft above sea level? 4 dozen different times over a '10,000 year' span??
Who says your not a man of GREAT Faith???

You do understand that was an intentionally ridiculous example to demonstrate how far you're reaching with your false dichotomy, right? It's not at all what I actually believe, and it's either hilarious that you didn't pick up on that given that I've been telling you my position this whole way through, or interesting that you're willing to dishonestly strawman me when it suits your argument.

what makes a world wide flood impossiable?

The geologic column which demonstrates that it did not happen.

That's not true at all. In the case of a world wide flood the evidence is here, we just don't want to acknoweledge it (Whales found on a desert mesa for instance)

You certainly haven't presented any. And, as I've said, the earth shows no evidence of it; seasonal accumulation continues just as normal, there are numerous sedimentary layers that wouldn't be possible in a flood scenario, etc etc. More importantly, "the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it!" is nothing more than a self reinforcing delusion.

And you're pointing back at the whales again, as though if you do it twice it suddenly stops being an argument from ignorance? Come on, man.

One thing's for sure science has no answers for us if what we 'know' to be true is indeed true.

This means literally nothing.

: Your the one ignoring the facts sport. like for instance how fossils are found/the undisturbed nature in which ALL of the skellotons were found, The fact that where they were found is at least 1/4 mile above sea level, they were found on an ancient sea bed 200 million years older than they themselves can be. The fact that there are dozens of examples ranging from something the size of a man to something larger than a bus... ALL Intact, means they were not deposited on a sea shore 1/4 mile above sea level.

Consider the other possibility: your uneducated ass misinterpreted some of the data.

What's more likely: the scientists missed something so obvious, or the layman scouring news articles about the thing, and not peer reviewed research, and is doing so desperate to find some flaw so he can argue from ignorance, missed something and leapt at the chance to use his favorite fallacy?

Your statement reeks of desperation in how youre down playing facts, Now I know how you guys 'feel' When you have some poor faith driven believer on his heels. The roles have reversed. I am the one speaking from fact and you and minnie are the one who are dealing in faith.

But the facts don't say anything about a worldwide flood, Drich. The absolute best you could say, if you're one hundred percent right, is that we don't know how the fossils got there. The fact that they are there is no more evidence for the flood as it is for superintelligent aliens moving them with a tractor beam. The fact that they're there is evidence that they're there; you're making an additional claim that you don't seem interested in supporting beyond an argument from ignorance.

"You can't tell me how the whales got there," does not translate to "therefore my idea about a worldwide flood must be true."

Again Common sense sport. a Life time living near the beach has proven one thing. If multi ton boulders from a Jetty/Sea wall can be moved miles down a beach during a cat 1 hurricane with just a 10ft storm surge, bones weighing ounces or lbs or even hundreds of lbs don't stand a chance, even in the course of normal tidal flow.

"Common sense"? It was once common sense that the earth stood still and the sun moved around it. Common sense once said that particles couldn't also be waves, but then along came the double slit experiment and proved that wrong. Common sense is not a good indicator of reality, especially where the evidence contradicts it, and the evidence says there was no global flood.

Oh, and not to mention at the very least the area we are speaking about is at minimum 1/4 MILE ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE SEA!!!

"Currently." Why do you never add the last part of that sentence? Are you trying to hide something?

Besides, even if you were right, a local flood could also lift sea levels, so you've got no reason to assert that it was necessarily a global flood, like you are.

I know you are speaking from faith here but do try and open your mind to the facts one in a while.

But the facts support neither a worldwide flood, nor the efficacy of an argument from ignorance, Mister Smug.

[Godscreated]

My conclusion is anyone who plays with himself is desperate and will say many crazy things.

GC

I don't know about the other people here, but I am really quiet when I play with myself. I really can't say anything, I have to concentrate.

Someone with the name Firewalker strikes me as a screamer.

GC

[polar bear]

Since he was supposed to be praying inside the whale, I'd say the Bible does.

Jonah 1-2 (mostly 2)

You've actually done something most here want, looked up the story, thank you.
If you will notice verse 17 of chapter 1 says, Jonah was in the whales belly ie. stomach for three days and nights and nothing is recorded that he prayed during that span of time. Verse 1 of chapter 2 starts with the word "Then," meaning only after Jonah had been in the belly of the whale three days and nights did he start to pray.
My conclusion to this is that Jonah would have been praying like mad if he were alive the whole time and, we have what I see as conformation from Jonah's pray he was dead. Jonah said he was calling out from Sheol ie. the grave and we know he was rescued from the grave because he said the LORD is salvation. These things are constants in scripture.
Again thanks for looking up the verses.

GC

dead or alive, I dont care...really? Sounds like a fish story to me

[abaris]

dead or alive, I dont care...really? Sounds like a fish story to me

Or rather, something fishy about the story. It also makes a hell of a difference if it was a big fish or a whale. Only then can we begin to determine, how long it takes to fully digest the average Jonah.