All Atheist's End up In Hell

Well ole evilmouse, I guess this thread has run its course. I have grown fond of you a bit as you remind me so much of my late friend that I spoke of earlier in the thread. It has been interesting and I have learned a lot from Student. He has posted some good source information that I will look back to as needed. Thanks Student for your research and persistence. Good1 is a different story -- I do not understand how someone can string together so many words that come out as total nonsense without any understandable meaning.:D

This thread exemplifies what is good about ET. We can differ but do it in a respectful manner and even throw in a good natured tease and a little humor at times. I am still laughing when Stu called for a MEDIC after reading my post about end times prophecy.

See you guys around ET.
 
themickey said:
Rather than my answer, turn here...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
A long winded article which should be right up your alley. :)
Historicity of the Bible:
The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's relationship to history—covering not just the Bible's acceptability as history but also the ability to understand the literary forms of biblical narrative. One can extend biblical historicity to the evaluation of whether or not the Christian New Testament is an accurate record of the historical Jesus and of the Apostolic Age. This tends to vary depending upon the opinion of the scholar......
More...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

The article posted by @themickey mentions how the biblical account of creation and the global flood became rejected by many in the scientific community:

The publication of James Hutton's Theory of the Earth in 1788 was an important development in the scientific revolution that would dethrone Genesis as the ultimate authority on primeval earth and prehistory. The first casualty was the Creation story itself, and by the early 19th century "no responsible scientist contended for the literal credibility of the Mosaic account of creation."[38] The battle between uniformitarianism and catastrophism kept the flood alive in the emerging discipline, until Adam Sedgwick, the president of the Geological Society, publicly recanted his previous support in his 1831 presidential address:

We ought indeed to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of the former world entombed in those deposits.[39]
More...

One reason they came to believe that people did not exist in the time of the great fossil deposits spanning the globe is simply that human fossils have not been found in these deposits. However, an alternate explanation can be that the areas populated by humans at the time were closer to the first effects of the flood waters and so were destroyed rather than fossilized. The video clip below touches on this possibility.

This video presents some strong evidence for how a single, global flood could have created the majority of the fossil records.

Some more interesting parts, in case someone doesn't want to watch the entire video clip are as follows:

00:56 Tracking each rock type as they were laid down by the flood across multiple continents
10:39 Discussion of dinosaurs
11:50 Mention of a T-Rex that was found with preserved blood cells and blood vessels
14:54 Global fossil beds
16:10 Reversal of flood waters as described in the Bible and evidence for it
18:50 Review of main points

 
Last edited:
studentofthemarkets said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

The article posted by @themickey mentions how the biblical account of creation and the global flood became rejected by many in the scientific community:
More...

More evidence that supports a global flood:


Herein lies an insurmountable dilemma for uniformitarian geologists. They maintain that the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited 500–520 million years ago3; the Redwall Limestone, 330–340 million years ago4; then the Kaibab Limestone at the top of the sequence (Figure 2), 260 million years ago.5 Lastly, the Kaibab Plateau was uplifted (about 60 million years ago), causing the folding.6 That’s a time span of about 440 million years between the first deposit and the folding. How could the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone still be soft and pliable, as though they had just been deposited? Wouldn’t they fracture and shatter if folded 440 million years after deposition?​

The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break.7 However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism.8 But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior9 is not observed in these rocks. The sandstone and limestone in the folds are identical to sedimentary layers elsewhere.​

The only logical conclusion is that the 440-million-year delay between deposition and folding never happened! Instead, the Tapeats-Kaibab strata sequence was laid down in rapid succession early during the year of the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood, followed by uplift of the Kaibab Plateau within the last months of the Flood. This alone explains the folding of the whole strata sequence without appreciable fracturing.​

Conclusion
Uniformitarian geologists claim that tens of thousands of feet of fossiliferous sedimentary layers have been deposited over more than 500 million years. In contrast, the global cataclysmic Flood of Genesis 7–8 leads creation geologists to believe that most of these layers were deposited in just over one year. Thus, during the Flood many different strata would have been laid down in rapid succession.​

In the walls of the Grand Canyon, we can see that the whole horizontal sedimentary strata sequence was folded without fracturing, supposedly 440 million years after the Tapeats Sandstone and Muav Limestone were deposited, and 200 million years after the Kaibab Limestone was deposited. The only way to explain how these sandstone and limestone beds could be folded, as though still pliable, is to conclude they were deposited during the Genesis Flood, just months before they were folded.​



https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rock-layers/rock-layers-folded-not-fractured/
 
OMG thank you so much student for your excellent post!
I've been looking everywhere for that kind of myth supporting pseudo-scientific-evidence.
Now at last I'll be able to use the same method to bypass any awkward laws of physics to prove my "Jack and the Beanstalk Theory".

:)
 
What are you guys so razzled about? You babble about a flood , I about a Beanstalk. One good myth deserves another is all it amounts to.:p
 
stu said:
What are you guys so razzled about? You babble about a flood , I about a Beanstalk. One good myth deserves another is all it amounts to.:p
More...
Stu, can you please show me some evidence to support your Beanstalk myth?

I already showed evidence for the Flood, so that it can no longer be considered a myth:


studentofthemarkets said:
Why do I post this stuff? Because some people think that Genesis is a myth and they have faith that evolution is truthful in it's explanation of how we got here, even though there are serious problems with the theory of evolution, such as contradicting scientific laws (as previously shown).



What is a myth?



View attachment 287081



So, evidence and facts aren't going to support a myth. Good thing there is physical evidence for a Global Flood....it can't be categorized as a myth!!



More...

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top