Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_bcuzbcuz
_Emeritus
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:14 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _bcuzbcuz »

subgenius wrote:
bcspace wrote:I dunno. The unbroken record of forest fires (upright burned trees) in Yellowstone for 20,000 plus years and the coral record are pretty convincing.

this is actually not evidence against a global flood, but merely evidence that is conflicting with the assumed date of the global flood. So, what you say here does not actually speak to the flood but to the chronology...for which the date of the flood may be inaccurate but the date of your "convincing" coral and burnt trees may also be inaccurate. The date of anything beyond a few thousand years is highly suspect and requires a bit of assumption (no matter the probability) from either perspective...but again, not influence on the actual occurrence of a flood.


Is there any record of a global flood in the glaciers of the world? Answer: No.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
_The Erotic Apologist
_Emeritus
Posts: 3050
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:07 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _The Erotic Apologist »

Image

...naughty pic removed. :smile:
Last edited by Guest on Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _ludwigm »

The Erotic Apologist wrote:[img, which I have to comment out to preview or to submit YOUR COMMENT]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff397/Schnedesy/137-which-came-first-the-universe-or-sex-toys.jpg[/img, which I have to comment out to preview or to submit YOUR COMMENT]

And You have the right to use the images feature?

Sex toys on celestial?

I am a niggah...
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _just me »

This is ridiculous.

Image
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

bcuzbcuz wrote:
subgenius wrote:I dunno. The unbroken record of forest fires (upright burned trees) in Yellowstone for 20,000 plus years and the coral record are pretty convincing
this is actually not evidence against a global flood, but merely evidence that is conflicting with the assumed date of the global flood. So, what you say here does not actually speak to the flood but to the chronology...for which the date of the flood may be inaccurate but the date of your "convincing" coral and burnt trees may also be inaccurate. The date of anything beyond a few thousand years is highly suspect and requires a bit of assumption (no matter the probability) from either perspective...but again, not influence on the actual occurrence of a flood.


Is there any record of a global flood in the glaciers of the world? Answer: No.

The glaciers arrived after the Flood. The Uniformitarian scientists may believe the glaciers have been around forever, but they sure seem to be melting a lot faster then anyone ever imagined --- are they not? Could be they miscalculated?
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Themis »

LittleNipper wrote: The glaciers arrived after the Flood. The Uniformitarian scientists may believe the glaciers have been around forever, but they sure seem to be melting a lot faster then anyone ever imagined --- are they not? Could be they miscalculated?


Nothing is 100%, but if we are to believe they started after the flood, what is your specific evidences that would show the large amounts of evidence collected by decades of work from Scientists studying glaciers and ice sheets around the world are incorrect?
42
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Drifting »

LittleNipper wrote: The glaciers arrived after the Flood.


What date do you have for the flood?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

Themis wrote:
LittleNipper wrote: The glaciers arrived after the Flood. The Uniformitarian scientists may believe the glaciers have been around forever, but they sure seem to be melting a lot faster then anyone ever imagined --- are they not? Could be they miscalculated?


Nothing is 100%, but if we are to believe they started after the flood, what is your specific evidences that would show the large amounts of evidence collected by decades of work from Scientists studying glaciers and ice sheets around the world are incorrect?


The very fact that the glaciers are melting at what uniformitarians/evolutionists think is an alarming rate. They've decided that the ice caps, etc., are extremely ancient. Ok, if 4 to 5 thousand years is extremely ancient; however, I know they do not believe that is ancient enough for them. They do not have any clue concerning pre or post Flood events and frankly they only see things through the eyes of atheism --- God cannot be a factor because to them there is no God ---- only nature. The world is because it is and things are happening because we cause them to happen.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Themis »

LittleNipper wrote:
The very fact that the glaciers are melting at what uniformitarians/evolutionists think is an alarming rate. They've decided that the ice caps, etc., are extremely ancient. Ok, if 4 to 5 thousand years is extremely ancient; however, I know they do not believe that is ancient enough for them. They do not have any clue concerning pre or post Flood events and frankly they only see things through the eyes of atheism --- God cannot be a factor because to them there is no God ---- only nature. The world is because it is and things are happening because we cause them to happen.


Why not just admit you don't have anything and understand nothing about the topic. I am asking for you to show actual evidence for your claims of glaciers coming after some global flood. You are so closed minded you don't even understand that many of the scientists you attack are christian. YOu might try opening your mind and talking to them.
42
_jo1952
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _jo1952 »

Themis wrote:Why not just admit you don't have anything and understand nothing about the topic. I am asking for you to show actual evidence for your claims of glaciers coming after some global flood. You are so closed minded you don't even understand that many of the scientists you attack are christian. YOu might try opening your mind and talking to them.


Hello Themis,

I see that you have created yet another "type" of "christian".

Blessings,

jo
Post Reply