Page 70 of 106 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 1053

Thread: Exposing Atheistic Myths

  1. Top | #691
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,900
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,113
    Rep Power
    55
    Actually if the light falling on the grass has no energy in the complements that render something that might be received as being green and has no light in the green range of the spectrum it will not be seen as green. It will be seen as some other hue, perhaps even black, or not seen at all if no light is reflected from it.

  2. Top | #692
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,985
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,829
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    According to this myth, this is the method which the most benevolent creature in all of existence chose purposefully in order to exact the death penalty on billions of life forms on the planet. Somehow religious ideology manages to brainwash people into being incapable of seeing the disconnect here, which after I escaped that mental prison I find fascinating.
    Totally agreed. Using the flood to rid the world of evil (and did it work?) is like burning down your house because you found a handful of carpenter ants. It's the HULK SMASH! action of a less-than-omnipotent being.

    Or--and I'm just spit-balling here--it's a non-falsifiable story to explain the big flood that happened before great-grandfather was born, that it was a punishment sent by God because of the way those people were behaving back then. This explanation makes more sense to me because:

    A) it doesn't require pretzel-twisting explanations about how koala bears in Australia were saved (local flooding has been common throughout all of human history) and

    B) the same stories are made up every single day, here in our supposedly scientific age. There is no natural disaster that occurs today that isn't blamed on some out group by a fire-and-brimstone preacher. Earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and yes even flash floods are always God's punishment for some kind of sin, like being gay, drinking alcohol, or voting Democrat. No gods are necessary to get someone to blame something bad on someone else.

    If it happens today, there's no reason why it didn't happen 5,000 years ago.

  3. Top | #693
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,038
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,515
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post

    No, because your opposing theory no evidence, either, AND it violates Occam's razor. So it'has less goingbfor it than materialism. It's into negative evidence.
    Keith, if "reality exists independently of minds" is a statement with no evidence whatsoever, then we know reality can not exist independently of minds. It then logically follows that an eternal mind that is always perceiving must always exist.

    You don't believe there were ANY MINDS around billions of years ago. And reality can not exist independently of minds.
    But you can apply the EXACT same reasoning to the claim "reality depends on minds for its existence", and reach the opposite conclusion. Thereby demonstrating that your reasoning is flawed, as it can "prove" two contradictory claims simultaneously.

    All you have proven here is that you are utterly shit at applying reasoning and logic. Which your regular readers already knew.
    Last edited by bilby; 11-11-2019 at 09:07 PM.

  4. Top | #694
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    994
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,793
    Rep Power
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    The flood would be the metaphorical tossing-out of the bowl of soup for a fresh one. But this isn't soup we're talking about, it's people and animals.
    Lets not forget the plants. Plants do good things for us, like absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, and producing food. Why did God have to kill the plants?

  5. Top | #695
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,492
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,992
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    The flood would be the metaphorical tossing-out of the bowl of soup for a fresh one. But this isn't soup we're talking about, it's people and animals.
    Lets not forget the plants. Plants do good things for us, like absorbing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen, and producing food. Why did God have to kill the plants?
    Because they wrre not alive.
    Biblically, spirit enters the body with breath, and the person or animal bevvomes a living thing.
    Plants, insects, fish have no nostrils, Noah had no reason to save them.

    How else could an olive branch be available as soon as the waters receded?

  6. Top | #696
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,287
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,343
    Rep Power
    24
    Well the waters didn't recede in just a day which would obviously give the wrong erroneous impression, and seeds for example could lay dormant for quite a few years. Only takes a few days to gemnate and weeks and months to grow depending on plants. Trees could lay dormant - still have life in them while rooted under water for a few months, whille the outer-layers although dead-ish, becomes a somewat protective barrier (briefly saying).
    Last edited by Learner; 11-12-2019 at 04:01 AM.

  7. Top | #697
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,492
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,992
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Well the waters didn't recede in just a day which would obviously give the wrong erroneous impression, and seeds for example could lay dormant for quite a few years. Only takes a few days to gemnate and weeks and months to grow depending on plants. Trees could lay dormant - still have life in them while rooted under water for a few months, whille the outer-layers although dead-ish, becomes a somewat protective barrier (briefly saying).
    But this was sea water, no? The Waters Below rising up and over....

    Or worse. The churning required by the Creationist model, to explain strata and fossils, would have meant a shitload of matter in suspension during the Flood. Trees and plants buried in that muck for up to ten months. Not only dormant, but on the way to ICR fossils.

    Your model does require fossilizing clams on top of mountains, right?

    So, and trees from before the Flood were not going to be green in that model. And new seeds might land in the mountaintop mud, germinate, and grow for a short time when the waters fell.....
    but the dove didn't bring back an olive sprout, did it?

  8. Top | #698
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,768
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,241
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Well the waters didn't recede in just a day which would obviously give the wrong erroneous impression, and seeds for example could lay dormant for quite a few years. Only takes a few days to gemnate and weeks and months to grow depending on plants. Trees could lay dormant - still have life in them while rooted under water for a few months, whille the outer-layers although dead-ish, becomes a somewat protective barrier (briefly saying).
    Underwater for a "few months"? Wasn't it a couple hundred days? And wasn't the flood busy creating all the sedimentary rock and varved clay deposits YEC'ers insist were created during this period because otherwise, there simply isn't enough time in the YEC model to explain shales and varved clays?

  9. Top | #699
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,985
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    8,829
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Well the waters didn't recede in just a day which would obviously give the wrong erroneous impression, and seeds for example could lay dormant for quite a few years. Only takes a few days to gemnate and weeks and months to grow depending on plants. Trees could lay dormant - still have life in them while rooted under water for a few months, whille the outer-layers although dead-ish, becomes a somewat protective barrier (briefly saying).

    How did all the modern plant species survive?

    • Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest?
    • Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.
    • Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.
    • Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.
    • Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?

  10. Top | #700
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,492
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,992
    Rep Power
    77
    Now we're reminding Learner that Flood proponents cannot have it both ways. Can't have a light submerging of surface plants for a little bit while also needing massive rearrangement of the Earth's crust.


    Still, have to wonder when we're ever going to get these atheistic myths that were threatened...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •