Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[JaySecrets]

Coal is full of fossils including vegetable matter. Those large palm tree things are plentiful, from when they collapsed into the swamp. Then they became crushed and dried, then eventually became coal for people to burn in power stations. Any coal miner has seen impressive specimens of plants long since extinct (my relatives have, anyway). All around the world there are seams of coal.

So why didn't those plants rot down into compost for new plants to grow on, which is what happens within a few months to any pile of vegetable matter nowadays? The answer is simple. The organisms that cause rot hadn't evolved yet. Those seams were not placed there as a joke or a puzzle or a gift from spacemen, no matter what some grifter tells you from a pulpit. Palm trees evolved before fungi and beetles; that's all there is to it.

There's another much simpler explanation. A worldwide flood created a lot of pressure and a lot of heat (think volcanic eruptions worldwide en mass). That's what you need to make what is more properly called organic fuels, what you call fossil fuels (the term fossil fuels assumes evolution's billions of years, but we know it doesn't take that long).

There is no observational evidence to prove your evolutionary claim, but you have to assume an absence of existing organisms. We can't observe my claim either. But we see the evidence of a worldwide flood all around the planet, and the theory matches known science today.

 

[JaySecrets]

The individual was obviously being exceedingly polite / diplomatic.

What that individual was ACTUALLY implying in their statement is - “The problem with you creationists is that you don’t have ENOUGH INTELLIGENCE.”



Hope that ^ helps.

.

JaySecretioms

So... You are the diviner of what they REALLY meant because what they said is a problem for you.

 

[ll74]

There's another much simpler explanation. A worldwide flood created a lot of pressure and a lot of heat (think volcanic eruptions worldwide en mass). That's what you need to make what is more properly called organic fuels, what you call fossil fuels (the term fossil fuels assumes evolution's billions of years, but we know it doesn't take that long).

This isn't a simple explanation. This is literally just you making up shit.

There is no observational evidence to prove your evolutionary claim, but you have to assume an absence of existing organisms. We can't observe my claim either. But we see the evidence of a worldwide flood all around the planet, and the theory matches known science today.

There is. You just don't accept it

 

[ll74]

So... You are the diviner of what they REALLY meant because what they said is a problem for you.

You do that all the time. Why are you complaining about other people doing it?

 

[RoryN]

So... You are the diviner of what they REALLY meant because what they said is a problem for you.

You do that all the time. Why are you complaining about other people doing it?

 

[Lazaran]

So... You are the diviner of what they REALLY meant because what they said is a problem for you.

What the individual was ACTUALLY saying was obvious to everyone except complete idiots - which explains why JaySecretioms missed it.



JaySecretions

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

There's another much simpler explanation. A worldwide flood created a lot of pressure and a lot of heat (think volcanic eruptions worldwide en mass). That's what you need to make what is more properly called organic fuels, what you call fossil fuels (the term fossil fuels assumes evolution's billions of years, but we know it doesn't take that long).

There is no observational evidence to prove your evolutionary claim, but you have to assume an absence of existing organisms. We can't observe my claim either. But we see the evidence of a worldwide flood all around the planet, and the theory matches known science today.

There’s zero evidence of a worldwide flood at that time. In fact, all evidence points to there being no flood at that time, because civilizations were thriving at that time.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There's another much simpler explanation. A worldwide flood created a lot of pressure and a lot of heat (think volcanic eruptions worldwide en mass). That's what you need to make what is more properly called organic fuels, what you call fossil fuels (the term fossil fuels assumes evolution's billions of years, but we know it doesn't take that long).

There is no observational evidence to prove your evolutionary claim, but you have to assume an absence of existing organisms. We can't observe my claim either. But we see the evidence of a worldwide flood all around the planet, and the theory matches known science today.

Where, exactly did this water come from. There isn't enough water locked in ice to have flooded the surface enough to drown everything. Nor to have "created a lot of pressure". The Earth experiences the same pressure today (maybe a little less since ice weighs less in the same volume) on it's surface as it did 2000, or even 10,000 years ago.

This is what I and others mean, A: you can't provide the evidence B: you don't understand the science involved

 

[ll74]

Where, exactly did this water come from. There isn't enough water locked in ice to have flooded the surface enough to drown everything. Nor to have "created a lot of pressure". The Earth experiences the same pressure today (maybe a little less since ice weighs less in the same volume) on it's surface as it did 2000, or even 10,000 years ago.

His god apparently left the sink on overnight.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

His god apparently left the sink on overnight.

Ok, so when he proposes that, which one of us is asking where the drain plug is? That plug points to a quick cure for when the oceans start to rise

 

[Bray123]

His god apparently left the sink on overnight.

That was the pro-life guy busy killing everyone in the world except the only person with a boat.

 

[JaySecrets]

Where, exactly did this water come from. There isn't enough water locked in ice to have flooded the surface enough to drown everything. Nor to have "created a lot of pressure". The Earth experiences the same pressure today (maybe a little less since ice weighs less in the same volume) on it's surface as it did 2000, or even 10,000 years ago.

Interesting enough, the language in the Bible and how it describes the earth fits perfectly, both in the pre and post flood worlds.

SO, first, the earth would have looked nothing like it does today before a worldwide flood. First, the Bible describes a planet with no rainfall, with water under the ground and pressure causing it to mist up to feed the plants. The perfect hydroponic situation for plants and man. The text of Genesis says there were waters UNDER the earth and waters ABOVE the earth (a perfect greenhouse with minimal UV exposure or damage and super-rich oxygen). It would explain the massive nature of the damage of water crashing up from beneath the ground, setting off volcanic eruptions and breaking up the earth badly, and the massive amounts of water coming crashing down from a (likely frozen) canopy over the earth. It also explains the differences in ages of people pre and post flood. Take away a planet of super-rich oxygen and UV protection, replace it with the oxygen we have now, and prolonged UV exposure, you would expect life spans to start shrinking.

Second, the land breaking up would create much higher mountains than the earth would have had then. The land amount on the planet doesn't change, but it does change shape.
Third, the water went right back where is goes: into oceans, rivers, lakes, and underground bodies of water (yes, those exist, and we know about them). We still have hot springs in the bottom of the ocean today! Funny, the Bible talks about those, and we didn't even know about them until recent history. There are whole ecosystems around them.

If I keep going here, it is just going to get long, so I am going to give a link that gets into all of this with the science and the evidence.
But here is a short answer from an AI search on the topic as well...

If you're asking about the water for the biblical flood in the book of Genesis, then here's some information. The oceans have enough water to cover the Earth in a layer that's 3 kilometers deep if the surface were perfectly smooth. Some scientists believe that the fossils buried in water-carried mud and sand sediments are evidence of the flood.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/feedback-where-did-all-floodwater-go/

And, by the way, the model of the ark, based on dementions and sizes the Bible describes, has been run through simulation to test it. It holds up perfectly.

This is what I and others mean, A: you can't provide the evidence B: you don't understand the science involved

Just did as far as any science can. Problem is that you have the exact same problem, except you actually have to ignore glaring problems with the evidence if your theories are correct. The physical evidence we do have is exactly what you would expect if there was a universal flood.

 

[JaySecrets]

That was the pro-life guy busy killing everyone in the world except the only person with a boat.

God spent a hundred years warning the people of earth that judgement was coming. After having been warned by God for a very, very long time prior to the building of the ark and bringing the animals to it. There was plenty of room for anyone who repented to join them on the ark. They, like you, mocked in the face of coming judgement from a God who could not, in His Holy nature, allow them to continue in the utterly self-destructive evil they lived in, but also loved them enough to provide a way of escaping the judgement.

 

[ll74]

Interesting enough, the language in the Bible and how it describes the earth fits perfectly, both in the pre and post flood worlds.

SO, first, the earth would have looked nothing like it does today before a worldwide flood. First, the Bible describes a planet with no rainfall, with water under the ground and pressure causing it to mist up to feed the plants. The perfect hydroponic situation for plants and man. The text of Genesis says there were waters UNDER the earth and waters ABOVE the earth (a perfect greenhouse with minimal UV exposure or damage and super-rich oxygen). It would explain the massive nature of the damage of water crashing up from beneath the ground, setting off volcanic eruptions and breaking up the earth badly, and the massive amounts of water coming crashing down from a (likely frozen) canopy over the earth. It also explains the differences in ages of people pre and post flood. Take away a planet of super-rich oxygen and UV protection, replace it with the oxygen we have now, and prolonged UV exposure, you would expect life spans to start shrinking.

Second, the land breaking up would create much higher mountains than the earth would have had then. The land amount on the planet doesn't change, but it does change shape.
Third, the water went right back where is goes: into oceans, rivers, lakes, and underground bodies of water (yes, those exist, and we know about them). We still have hot springs in the bottom of the ocean today! Funny, the Bible talks about those, and we didn't even know about them until recent history. There are whole ecosystems around them.

If I keep going here, it is just going to get long, so I am going to give a link that gets into all of this with the science and the evidence.
But here is a short answer from an AI search on the topic as well...

If you're asking about the water for the biblical flood in the book of Genesis, then here's some information. The oceans have enough water to cover the Earth in a layer that's 3 kilometers deep if the surface were perfectly smooth. Some scientists believe that the fossils buried in water-carried mud and sand sediments are evidence of the flood.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/feedback-where-did-all-floodwater-go/

And, by the way, the model of the ark, based on dementions and sizes the Bible describes, has been run through simulation to test it. It holds up perfectly.

Just did as far as any science can. Problem is that you have the exact same problem, except you actually have to ignore glaring problems with the evidence if your theories are correct. The physical evidence we do have is exactly what you would expect if there was a universal flood.

There is no geological record of a global flood.

There were regional floods

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Interesting enough, the language in the Bible and how it describes the earth fits perfectly, both in the pre and post flood worlds.

SO, first, the earth would have looked nothing like it does today before a worldwide flood. First, the Bible describes a planet with no rainfall, with water under the ground and pressure causing it to mist up to feed the plants. The perfect hydroponic situation for plants and man. The text of Genesis says there were waters UNDER the earth and waters ABOVE the earth (a perfect greenhouse with minimal UV exposure or damage and super-rich oxygen). It would explain the massive nature of the damage of water crashing up from beneath the ground, setting off volcanic eruptions and breaking up the earth badly, and the massive amounts of water coming crashing down from a (likely frozen) canopy over the earth. It also explains the differences in ages of people pre and post flood. Take away a planet of super-rich oxygen and UV protection, replace it with the oxygen we have now, and prolonged UV exposure, you would expect life spans to start shrinking.

Second, the land breaking up would create much higher mountains than the earth would have had then. The land amount on the planet doesn't change, but it does change shape.
Third, the water went right back where is goes: into oceans, rivers, lakes, and underground bodies of water (yes, those exist, and we know about them). We still have hot springs in the bottom of the ocean today! Funny, the Bible talks about those, and we didn't even know about them until recent history. There are whole ecosystems around them.

Except the world wasn't flat, and through plate tectonics we have a pretty good approximation what the earth surface was like through the past.

Second there is no more water today than there was then and that is not enough to flood out the world as it was 10,000 years ago. In fact 10,000 years ago we had less water, and more ice. We're in closed-loop eco system, as you just acknowledge.

Nothing above can be proven, except portions that already align with known science.

If I keep going here, it is just going to get long, so I am going to give a link that gets into all of this with the science and the evidence.

Yes but your links don't get into peer reviewed experimentation. Supposition is not science.

And, by the way, the model of the ark, based on dementions and sizes the Bible describes, has been run through simulation to test it. It holds up perfectly.

That it's weight could be displaced by water and float, sure. How many of the known animals of yesteryear can it accommodate?

Just did as far as any science can. Problem is that you have the exact same problem, except you actually have to ignore glaring problems with the evidence if your theories are correct.

I don't believe in theories. I follow the facts learned through Science. Including yours. Nothing you have presented is even science. It is OP-Eds of supposition.

The physical evidence we do have is exactly what you would expect if there was a universal flood.

What physical evidence. Russia drilled the deepest hole ever drilled, and there were no sediments from a flood of "biblical" proportions. Russians are pretty religious as a whole and I'm sure if they discovered something that proves "the story of Noah", we'd have heard about it.

 

[JaySecrets]

Except the world wasn't flat, and through plate tectonics we have a pretty good approximation what the earth surface was like through the past.

Second there is no more water today than there was then and that is not enough to flood out the world as it was 10,000 years ago. In fact 10,000 years ago we had less water, and more ice. We're in closed-loop eco system, as you just acknowledge.

Nothing above can be proven, except portions that already align with known science.

Yes but your links don't get into peer reviewed experimentation. Supposition is not science.

That it's weight could be displaced by water and float, sure. How many of the known animals of yesteryear can it accommodate?

I don't believe in theories. I follow the facts learned through Science. Including yours. Nothing you have presented is even science. It is OP-Eds of supposition.

What physical evidence. Russia drilled the deepest hole ever drilled, and there were no sediments from a flood of "biblical" proportions. Russians are pretty religious as a whole and I'm sure if they discovered something that proves "the story of Noah", we'd have heard about it.

Everything you just said is false and ignores abundant evidence, to some of which access has been posted on here. The "peer reviews" you are looking for come from "scientists" who refuse to review evidence for creation and ban papers presenting that evidence without even looking at them. There are many former evolutionists who were convinced by the evidence, from DNA to the geological record, that evolution gets it wrong. They have been immediately dismissed from their positions and banned from presenting any papers in your "peer review" network. The evidence I presented has been peer reviewed and examined at length. By real scientists who don't dismiss the possibility of a God for the sake of their "sexual mores". Actually read and watch ALL the evidence posted so far, in its entirety, then talk to me. I've done the same for evolutionary bs for decades. Once you have offered the same honesty and integrity, then get back to me. With actual answers to the challenges raised. All you have offered so far is, "But evolution is proven science. I can't provide one piece of observable evidence of one kind becoming a different kind, but it happened. Science says so."

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Everything you just said is false and ignores abundant evidence, to some of which access has been posted on here. The "peer reviews" you are looking for come from "scientists" who refuse to review evidence for creation and ban papers presenting that evidence without even looking at them. There are many former evolutionists who were convinced by the evidence, from DNA to the geological record, that evolution gets it wrong.

Yes I get you disagree, yet you fail to deliver anything tangible, factual and scientifically repeatable. It's just supposition. That's why "religion" is called faith, and not fact. You can believe anything your little heart desires. Just don't try and sell it to me.

The evidence I presented has been peer reviewed and examined at length. By real scientists who don't dismiss the possibility of a God for the sake of their "sexual mores".

Where, link to those published peer reviewed papers. You keep claiming this, yet all you produce are youtube videos, and OP-Eds, or a conglomeration of writings who's footnotes all lead to other producers of paper. Nothing you have produced is repeatable.

"But evolution is proven science.

Yes it is, we have the records, observations, confirmed by others. There is no doubt, except when people try and fit the Biblical writings into the picture. It is at this point the bible falls apart or "data"needs to be changed or disregarded to fit into the bible descriptions.

I can't provide one piece of observable evidence of one kind becoming a different kind, but it happened. Science says so."

Of course you can't. But then again "no one is so blind, as one who refuses to see".

 

[RobDownSouth]

There’s zero evidence of a worldwide flood at that time. In fact, all evidence points to there being no flood at that time, because civilizations were thriving at that time.

I'm still waiting for evidence of a "land bridge" between Asia and Australia, or evidence that kangaroos at one time had webbed feet capable of swimming vast distances.

 

[ll74]

Kudos for the thread title change

 

[JaySecrets]

I do believe you just violated forum rules of harassment with that thread title. Shall we see what the mods think?

 

[ll74]

I do believe you just violated forum rules of harassment with that thread title. Shall we see what the mods think?

Lol, poor white guy

 

[JaySecrets]

Lol, poor white guy

Observing, that's all. See, I challenge an idea or a worldview, you insult a person. What I do is a sign of intellect. What you do is a sign of ignorance. It's why your side never proposes ideas with any depth of thought. You just attack and malign people, and use pathetic tropes and lies to do it. Just as you have done with me. All you have done is expose your own ignorance to everyone not brainwashed like you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I do believe you just violated forum rules of harassment with that thread title. Shall we see what the mods think?

There are no mods here. There is just Manu or Laurel who decide if the rules are violated.

 

[YDB95]

Observing, that's all. See, I challenge an idea or a worldview, you insult a person. What I do is a sign of intellect. What you do is a sign of ignorance. It's why your side never proposes ideas with any depth of thought. You just attack and malign people, and use pathetic tropes and lies to do it. Just as you have done with me. All you have done is expose your own ignorance to everyone not brainwashed like you.

This would carry a lot more weight if there were a single time you had ever responded to any of us without calling us baby-killers or Marxists or - as is usually the case - both.

 

[JaySecrets]

This would carry a lot more weight if there were a single time you had ever responded to any of us without calling us baby-killers or Marxists or - as is usually the case - both.

I make statements based on the facts of behavior and stated beliefs. You attack based on assumptions and presuppositions, and then devolve into profanity. If you can't tell the difference, you are in a bad way.