More Questions for Christians

[Piscinin]

[/quote]

Being an inept and sarcastic dimwit will get you nowhere here.

GC
[/quote]

So when you`re talking about people living inside a whale, rising to heaven, 3 in 1 etc you`re being sarcastic towards the atheists?

Did you knock properly and didn`t find the answers you were looking for from the tooth fairy?

You should knock again and again until it makes sense to you and you totally believe it.

Trust me, it works, you only have to have faith.

[Drich]

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

Again e-lax The Whole Skeleton weighs 7700 pounds. Is it your contention that each vertebra weighs 2000 lbs each?
There are 356 bones in a blue whale. if so that is 712,000 lbs, nearly 10 times what a blue whale skellaton actually weighs. But if you take 7700 and divide it be 356 the number of bones the average bone weighs in at 21.629 lbs.. light enough to be pushed around like drift wood by passing waves..

That said, some bones are much heavier than 22lbs. Some can weigh several hundred lbs.. that also means if there are bones heavier than 22lbs the average bone weight must also go down to compsenate for the more dense/larger skull bones. Which again goes back to what i said in the very beginning. 'I have no doubt that some of the heavier skull bones would be found but the much lighter bones should have been washed away by the waves and normal ebb and flow of the tides.'

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

We don't have to pretend or assume anything. I posted links to several confirming articals which also pointed to maps. i am speaking to what has been recorded.

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.

That is also known as Argumentum ad hominem. If what i said was uninformed/uneducated then it would have been easy enough for you to address the content of my statement with corrective fact, but rather you chose to attack the messenger rather than the message.

Your uninformed opinion doesn't trump mine just because you said it first, Drich.

The proof i attached to my 'opinion' does indeed trump your hurricane explaination.

At least mine aligns with the views of the people who actually are educated in this field.

ahh, no. your opinion aligns itself with those who wrote the artical.
I am the one who quoted known verifiable sources concerning the fossilization process, the age and time period in which the area in question could sustain aquadic life, the time period in which the various species lived, I've stated known facts about bone densities, and bone counts, tidal patterns, and the basical fundamentals of tidal errosion.

You blindly believe what is contained in a singular artical and have not crossed those facts with anyother than your faith in 'science.'

Your 'aligment' is a big fail.

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?

Again because i have quoted fact, and can verify absolutly everything I have stated from reputiable sources. While you on the other hand keep point to your faith as if that were enough to dismiss the evidence i have provided.

What you dont seem to get, is your argueing from a position of faith while trying to retain the typical atheist position of arguing from fact. Again, just so you understand you have no facts. Only faith in those in whom you have deemed smarter than you, and what thay have said in an artical.

My question is why should anyone believe those who wrote the articals and those who provided the material in the articals if they do not align themselves with known verifiable fact?

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

So the encyclopaedia britannica does not contain 'science', BUT one of the top ten articals your google search found automatically contains a brand of 'science' that can not be questioned? Oh, my goodness you have skipped into the atheist equilivant of a Jonestown level of faith haven't you? Because only the fanitically faith blind commit themselves this deeply to a fallacy of false authority.

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.

My flustered brother you can't classify my work as a straw man fallacy if i quoted what you said and addressed it. Nor can you identify my efforts as a false dichotomy unless there are viable alternitives to the two discussed possiablities. That sir would be a fallacy of equivalence.

The geologic column which demonstrates that it did not happen.

which is...

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.

That's not true. What you're parroting back to me is based on the typical flood plain senerio. where flood water picks up debris from one point and deposits it onto another. Think the of the 04 sunami. water comes in from point A and picks up debris and deposits to point B.

This is not the model of flood described in the bible. The bible describes a flood from the top down and bottom up. (Rain and well springs) This would be more like a large boat being swamped from below with sea water and rain water from above. The vast majority of the boats conents will remain in place.

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?

How is this not what you are doing in your defense?

Here is how this is not what I am doing:
I have clearly stated my arguement was to refute the data provided in the articals several times. i then set out to quote the relevent source material that disprooves what was said in those articals.. You on the other hand keep returning to the dry well of internet articals proping yourself and your arguements up with them as if they are the scientific standards in of themselves. (Isn't that exactly what you just accused me of?)
Project much?

But the facts don't say anything about a worldwide flood, Drich.

If that is what has got you in a tail spin take the flood off the table and ask the same question of the hypothsis reprsented in the internet articals concerning the perservation of said bones in a desert plateau. Do the fact support your articals? the ones you have been refering to as "Science/scientists?"

The absolute best you could say, if you're one hundred percent right, is that we don't know how the fossils got there.

Not true. The best I could say is that there are two theories. One the facts concerning fossilization do not support and one the facts of fossilization do indeed support.

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.

Actually i quoted the fossilization process as support of a great flood theory several times.

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

I am asking for a viable hypothsis on how the various marine mamials were fossilized intact. At this point you have to either poop or get off the pot.

"Common sense"? It was once common sense that the earth stood still and the sun moved around it.

It is also common sense that tells us that when a man writes an artical it does not mean he is also taking into consideration all the different variables concerning what he has been told.

Common sense once said that particles couldn't also be waves, but then along came the double slit experiment and proved that wrong.

It is also common sense that tells us that when a professor of anything is being interviewed for a given artical, he speaks to what he knows and fills in the gaps with material known to him at the time. But often does so with the same authority.

Common sense is not a good indicator of reality, especially where the evidence contradicts it, and the evidence says there was no global flood.

It is also good common sense to not take a man (especially hypothetically speaking) on his word nor his degree. But rather we must verify everything. If known fact conflicts with a man's word then common sense tells one to stick with known fact.

Common sense also states when one compares the predictiable ebb and flow of the literal sea tide with wave partical physics in an attempt to dismiss his way into a position of authority.. It means The man is bluffing, and has nothing of substance in which to counter what is being discussed.

Bottom line e-lax, you can't argue the nature of ebb and flow of the tide nor the errosive qualities of simple waves. You only have two options. Eliminate the tidal forces by either removing the moon from the equasion 9 million years ago, or put the ToD in still water, and subsequently silt that would foster fossilization.

To put the ToD in still water we are either talking great flood (Which would account for silt) OR when that portion of land was under the sea pre triassic period. (Which is not consistant with the animals evolutionary progression for that time period.)

---

Ahh, the True Scotsman are out and about again, I see.

define no true scots man fallacy please.

---

Why do i believe in the story of Jonah found in the bible? Because in the bible is a very specific set of promises. If one does 123 God will give them ABC. I did 123, and received ABC therefore I found the bible to be true.

No, even if you're right that means that you found that specific set of biblical claims to be true. You understand that books can be correct about one claim and still wrong in another, right? Spiderman comics take place in New York, which is totally a real place, but that doesn't mean Spiderman is real. You are vastly overstressing your case here.

There is nothing I have found to be false concerning what I have been told or promise thus far. Therefore i have taken that resolve and applied it to the rest of scripture.

Why not investigate all the claims on their own merit and find out which are true and which are false? Let me guess: because then things that you want to be true, won't be?

...think about that statement for a minute...
What do 'we' have in the way of science and history that would support or deny the life events of one man who live 5000 years ago?

[Mystical]

Being an inept and sarcastic dimwit will get you nowhere here.

GC

This coming from the inept dimwit who has yet to demonstrate why he believes in god. You've been here.. Awhile. All you can seem to do is seethe foulness into every conversation any chance you can get.

I've concluded the only reason GC comes here is to fill that human need to be an ugly twatwaffle to his fellow man. Nothing GC has said in his time here indicates to me he has any humility much less desirable qualities whatsoever. He just tells everyone what a great god worker he is to us heathens while he self fulfills his need to be a nasty bastard to all if us. It's truly remarkable that such a fake person can actually exist, but here he is. I wish I could say I'm surprised. Even if I were a Christian, I'd be disgusted with the disgrace GC does for my religion on these forums.

Let me save the newbies the inner conflict and propose you hit that ignore button now rather than later.

[Drich]

Well no Drich, you keep misunderstanding me.

I`m saying that the tooth fairy is the real realigion.

then proove it. Show me that thooth fairism is a real religion, then we can proceed.

[Piscinin]

Sure Drich.

She has talked to me and made all my wishes come true. All i needed to do was have faith and believe in her.

What do you mean by "true religion"? No taxes? Or is there a number-of-people-who-believe-in-it threshold? Or it has to be old?

Everyone can see she`s the true path to heaven, but first you have to truly&madly&depply believe it`s true. Please knock and you shall find.

But keep in mind, if you knock and you don`t find the tooth fairy, it`s only because you didn`t knock properly.

---

*deeply

---

Please Drich, keep on knocking, i`d really like to save you. The tooth fairy told me the bible was written by the devil.

How is it possible that she answered 100% of my wishes? What about the light i see everytime she appears?

It has to be the true path.

[FifthElement]

What makes a world wide flood impossiable?

Don't be silly young man, you sound less serious than you normally do here.

Read this article carefully and then you will know, if you want to know, that is ...

[Jenny A]

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

Sorry, no one reading Jonah would conclude he was dead three days. I can't imagine a resurrection in the Bible not highlighted in bold. The grave he was referring to was a watery one from which the fish saved him at god's command.

The story I remember from memory. And though the whale makes good pics, the point of the story is what happens when a prophet runs from god. Old Jonah was on the lam. The fish tale is just extra that lends additional unbelievability. Shoel, is not a straightforward word to translate. It means Hades, but also destruction.

[abaris]

[Godscreated]

---

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

---

Sorry, no one reading Jonah would conclude he was dead three days. I can't imagine a resurrection in the Bible not highlighted in bold. The grave he was referring to was a watery one from which the fish saved him at god's command.

The story I remember from memory. And though the whale makes good pics, the point of the story is what happens when a prophet runs from god. Old Jonah was on the lam. The fish tale is just extra that lends additional unbelievability. Shoel, is not a straightforward word to translate. It means Hades, but also destruction.

You're write the story is about a prophet trying to go against God's will, yet within that story there's the Messiah story. Sheol also refers to the grave. Jonah was also in the fish for thee days before he started to pray, the word "Then" in verse 1 of chapter 2 shows us this plainly. The fish did keep Jonah from drowning as was God's plan, but Jonah couldn't have lived in the fish for three days, if he had don't you think he would have had more than one prayer, especially before three days in a fishes belly.

GC

[abaris]

You're write the story is about a prophet trying to go against God's will, yet within that story there's the Messiah story. Sheol also refers to the grave. Jonah was also in the fish for thee days before he started to pray, the word "Then" in verse 1 of chapter 2 shows us this plainly. The fish did keep Jonah from drowning as was God's plan, but Jonah couldn't have lived in the fish for three days, if he had don't you think he would have had more than one prayer, especially before three days in a fishes belly.

GC

Or that's what your pastor tells you.

You do realize that the number three was one of the holy numbers in many myths before the first jewish shepard even walked the desert?