Christians, What Do You Make Of The Decline Of Your Religion?

[Miles]

.


....................

.................... source

Or doesn't it matter?

.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #170]

Well said. The Religious keep thinking their brand of "crazy" is the norm and think the rest of us need to disprove it.

Nope.

Everyone needs to prove their position and Science is winning

Like, infinity to 0, btw....

[brunumb]

Other lights than sun exists, therefore it is perfectly logical to think that there could have been other light also in the beginning to cause day and night. Fascinating to find person who is a light denier.

OK then, give us a scenario that involves these other lights (please be specific) and explain how day and night result....

Sorry, I don't know what exactly the light was at the beginning.

Nowadays it is taught light is photons. Maybe in the beginning God was the source of light and created photons. And when there was photons, it was called day and when there was not, it was called night. It doesn't necessary require earth moving in some way, just that at some point photons are sent and at some time they are not.

Too funny

So it seems that we had God blinking on and off for a while to create day and night. I suppose he got a bit tired of that and decided to make the Sun, tip Earth on an angle and set it in orbit while spinning at the same time. Voila! Days, nights, years, seasons, you name it.

[1213]

Every other Creationists seems to make up a different excuse for a flood that is not found in geology. The fact is that geology shows that mountains were upthrust in a way that folded strata in a way that would have taken millennia to bend strata like rubber (1). It was not done in a year or less and is not an illusion of mountains caused by 'compression of ocean floor', whatever that means in practical terms. Just why would the ocean floor compress other than to conveniently make the global flood look like oceans? And just how do you explain how a single continent was turned into different ones by the hydroplate collapse or perhaps being bashed in by a comet or asteroid - you don't seem clear which it was?

If the bending would have taken millenia, it would have eroded away, and left no traces of bending. I think the Biblical idea that there was single continent that was broken, explains the bending better. It gives plausible force for the matter.

And the plate collapse. By what is told in the Bible, the original single continent was on top of vast water reservoir, which is called in the Bible the great deep. The flood came when "the fountains of the great deep broken up". Possible reason for that could be for example meteorite that could have caused a crack to the original continent that caused water to escape below the continent. And when the water started to escape from below the continent, dry land could not be hold anymore in its place and started to sunk. And when the parts of the continent sunk, its edges were pushed so that they bend strata and formed orogenic mountains.

Compression of the new ocean floor means, after dry stuff had sunken, it was covered with lot of water. That weight of water has pushed gas out of the sediments, which has caused the material to be more dense/compressed. And when the stuff is compressed, the level of ocean floor has dropped causing it look like water level drops.

As to the animals, I trust you are not trying the 'Bible does not use those words' apologetic when it clearly says that two of each kind of animal was squeezed on the Ark. Enough to repopulate the world, aside from genetic bottlenecks that should show up in the DNA. It does not; Instead DNA show derivation from common ancestors and - yes - in the end, arguably to a single cell based on DNA.

I think Bible is speaking of land animals, not all possible animals.

I have not seen any reasonable explanation what should the bottleneck look like. I think everything looks exactly what it would look like after the flood.

[1213]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously....

You don't have to believe it, I only asked you to explain why do you think it is not logical or reasonable. Was it too difficult question for you?

[boatsnguitars]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously....

You don't have to believe it, I only asked you to explain why do you think it is not logical or reasonable. Was it too difficult question for you?

Nice, civil, Christ-like post.

What's illogical or unreasonable about anything supernatural, then? Krishna? Moroni? Quetzalcoatl? For that matter, anything at all?

[TRANSPONDER]

Every other Creationists seems to make up a different excuse for a flood that is not found in geology. The fact is that geology shows that mountains were upthrust in a way that folded strata in a way that would have taken millennia to bend strata like rubber (1). It was not done in a year or less and is not an illusion of mountains caused by 'compression of ocean floor', whatever that means in practical terms. Just why would the ocean floor compress other than to conveniently make the global flood look like oceans? And just how do you explain how a single continent was turned into different ones by the hydroplate collapse or perhaps being bashed in by a comet or asteroid - you don't seem clear which it was?

If the bending would have taken millenia, it would have eroded away, and left no traces of bending. I think the Biblical idea that there was single continent that was broken, explains the bending better. It gives plausible force for the matter.

And the plate collapse. By what is told in the Bible, the original single continent was on top of vast water reservoir, which is called in the Bible the great deep. The flood came when "the fountains of the great deep broken up". Possible reason for that could be for example meteorite that could have caused a crack to the original continent that caused water to escape below the continent. And when the water started to escape from below the continent, dry land could not be hold anymore in its place and started to sunk. And when the parts of the continent sunk, its edges were pushed so that they bend strata and formed orogenic mountains.

Compression of the new ocean floor means, after dry stuff had sunken, it was covered with lot of water. That weight of water has pushed gas out of the sediments, which has caused the material to be more dense/compressed. And when the stuff is compressed, the level of ocean floor has dropped causing it look like water level drops.

The bending has eroded away which is why it has been exposed to be seen. Breaking a continent does not explain strata malformation - that would cause breaking into larger or smaller chunks of stratified rock, aside that in the creationist model there would 'not be enough time' for hard rock strata to form anyway, never mind those caused by foraminifer shells. and even less metamorphic rocks re transformed from their original state. Nor does the matching of America and Africa suggest that a hole was bashed in between them. Your model is unfeasible and does not fit the evidence.

Your explanation of the water dropping holds no water more than gas. The underwater ocean is covered by rock. This gets broken (the natural method you propose actually needs no god and thus no ark for survival any more than any other flood story. It might save Genesis if true, but debunks God doing the flood) and the chunks fall to the ocean floor thus raising it. Even if your odd idea that water pressure would compress those new rocks, it would still be higher than it was and could not appear to 'go down'. Your model fails as an explanation of where the water went..

As to the animals, I trust you are not trying the 'Bible does not use those words' apologetic when it clearly says that two of each kind of animal was squeezed on the Ark. Enough to repopulate the world, aside from genetic bottlenecks that should show up in the DNA. It does not; Instead DNA show derivation from common ancestors and - yes - in the end, arguably to a single cell based on DNA.

I think Bible is speaking of land animals, not all possible animals.

I have not seen any reasonable explanation what should the bottleneck look like. I think everything looks exactly what it would look like after the flood.

The problem would still obtain in the case of 'all land animals' plus birds and insects. The 'bottleneck' would look like genetic disorder - a phenomena called in the expertise, 'inbreeding'. If it doesn't show up as physical deformations and heath issues, it is plainly seen in the DNA. Everything in geology, palaeontology, geography, species distribution, and genetics is exactly what it would look like if there was deep time geology and evolution and no 'Flood'. your statement is merely denialist.

[TRANSPONDER]

How does that apply to a religious text, when on the face, the claims are not logical or reasonable?

Please give one example of such?

Demons in pigs

Why do you think that is not logical, or reasonable?

Be serious, please.

I can't understand how churches ask people to believe such inane things, then, they teach their sheep to act outraged - shocked! - that people don't take their beliefs seriously....

You don't have to believe it, I only asked you to explain why do you think it is not logical or reasonable. Was it too difficult question for you?

It's like B&G said - it is supernatural and such things have natural medical causes and are not done by messiahs agreeing to requests from demons. Thus you have to postulate a one -off supernatural event of the kind that does not normally happen. That is ot logical or reasonable as it is special pleading and against normal events in nature.

Now, the counter to that is (or logically should be) "It is a miracle, sure, but it was recorded to have happened that one time". But there we get question o whether the record is reliable or looks like a lot of miracle claims. You see the problem? A lot of incredible claims do not validate each other.

[otseng]

Was it too difficult question for you?

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making any personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[1213]

....
It's like B&G said - it is supernatural and such things have natural medical causes and are not done by messiahs agreeing to requests from demons. Thus you have to postulate a one -off supernatural event of the kind that does not normally happen. That is ot logical or reasonable as it is special pleading and against normal events in nature....

Supernatural may be difficult to believe, but it does not make it illogical nor unreasonable.

[1213]

... Breaking a continent does not explain strata malformation - that would cause breaking into larger or smaller chunks of stratified rock, ....

I assume many of the "fountains of great deep" were on Mid Atlantic ridge. From there the water escaped from below dry land/original continent. And when the water came from there, it washed all material also towards America, causing strata formations and when the parts of the original continent sunk, they pushed those sediments/strata so that it formed orogenic mountains.

Nor does the matching of America and Africa suggest that a hole was bashed in between them. Your model is unfeasible and does not fit the evidence.

The Mid-Atlantic ridge is the "hole" between America and Africa.

...The 'bottleneck' would look like genetic disorder - a phenomena called in the expertise, 'inbreeding'. If it doesn't show up as physical deformations and heath issues, it is plainly seen in the DNA.

It would be nice to know more accurately what it would mean in practice. If we believe what the Bible tells, after creation everything was good and at the time of the great flood, everything could have been genetically still much better than nowadays. Because we don't know accurately the situation before the flood, it is not possible to say what kind of bottleneck there was.