Conquer Club

Post Any Evidence For God Here

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby chang50 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:11 am

universalchiro wrote:
chang50 wrote:
universalchiro wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:I am looking for evidence of God. If any of you have any...please post it here.


Noah's Ark was found in the Mountains of Ararat in Turkey. Built exactly as the Bible described it, built with the same wood as the Bible said, built with the same length, height and depth as the Bible describes it and resting in the location the Bible said it was. Genesis chapters 6-9. Read it and search, you will find. Ask for truth, you will get it. Knock and the door will be open to you. God is waiting for you.

Click image to enlarge.
image

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah%27s_ark.htm
http://planet.infowars.com/outdoors/exp ... -noahs-ark
They have found timber, laid out with bulk heads, a keel, keelson, etc.
They found huge stones with a hole at the top, 3 on each side. These provide stabilization and prevent rocking and movement. Clearly for a ship, not meant to move, but to survive.

If you are too comfortable in believing in evolution and don't want truth, then just laugh and poke fun. But if you still have a mind and desire for truth, then you owe this to your eternal soul to seek for truth. Don't delay!



It's bordering on impossible not to laugh when someone thinks the theory of evolution deals with the formation of the earth,or have you checked that one out but forgot to retract your earlier statements?

You are performing logical suicide. What evolutionary process occurs on the earth without the earth? Nothing.
What evolutionary process occurs on the earth without the earth's natural processes? Nothing.
You are so blind to your own religion, you don't even know your own doctrine when you hear it.
Without the earth, no evolutionary process occurs on the earth. Every living thing has come to life from the earth's rock and rain of amino acids and proteins that formed complex structures that formed complex molecular structures and given enough time evolved through natural processes into single cell life form. And subsequently into the complexities of life today. Looks like you need the ABC's of evolution. For all and I mean all evolutionist believe the earth was molten 4.6 billion years ago and slowly cooled over millions of years to billion years allowing life to form. You are clueless. And I already addressed this by siting 2 sources of your religion that affirmed what I said.

Evolutionist are leaning too much on a crutch, "Nice straw man argument". Just continue in your ignorance. Believe what has already been proven a flawed hypothesis.




Well of course all change is evolution in the broadest sense of the word,but you know as well as I do the theory of evolution refers specifically to a particular type of change.Debating you is like trying to grab a handful of smoke,you dodge and twist and move the goalposts hoping to obscure the matter at hand.Of course you don't want things correctly defined because your position is untenable.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:15 am

john9blue wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
I'm sorry, what? If the criteria to win a judged debate is to reference sketchy sites and apply nonsensical interpretations of physical laws, then I'm not sure the "debate" is valid. Quit being an apologist, john.

-TG


if the opposition posts sarcastic one-liners and youtube videos, then i agree, there's hardly a debate at all.

quit being an apologist for "your" side just because you agree with them.

and people wonder why nobody likes atheists...


That's not part of the debate and you know it. Nobody is using mockery as evidence against god or evolution. That's simply people being a little mean, and that's part of the internet. The evidence put forward by atheists has been "refuted" by silly denials with no basis in hard science or reality. After 150+ pages of these same inane lines of reasoning that don't ever actually properly refute the arguments, mockery is bound to show up. Sure, some of us find it hilarious that fundies actually believe that Noah transported two of each species on an ark or that the human race started with two white people in a garden who ate a knowledge-inducing fruit. I'm not using their gullibility as direct evidence against god, I'm using the illogicality of those scenarios against the Abrahamic god.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby chang50 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:44 am

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
john9blue wrote:
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:
I'm sorry, what? If the criteria to win a judged debate is to reference sketchy sites and apply nonsensical interpretations of physical laws, then I'm not sure the "debate" is valid. Quit being an apologist, john.

-TG


if the opposition posts sarcastic one-liners and youtube videos, then i agree, there's hardly a debate at all.

quit being an apologist for "your" side just because you agree with them.

and people wonder why nobody likes atheists...


That's not part of the debate and you know it. Nobody is using mockery as evidence against god or evolution. That's simply people being a little mean, and that's part of the internet. The evidence put forward by atheists has been "refuted" by silly denials with no basis in hard science or reality. After 150+ pages of these same inane lines of reasoning that don't ever actually properly refute the arguments, mockery is bound to show up. Sure, some of us find it hilarious that fundies actually believe that Noah transported two of each species on an ark or that the human race started with two white people in a garden who ate a knowledge-inducing fruit. I'm not using their gullibility as direct evidence against god, I'm using the illogicality of those scenarios against the Abrahamic god.

-TG



Essentially the evidence for atheism is the lack of evidence for theism as demonstrated repeatedly in this and other threads.The atheists who have posted have shown superhuman restraint and patience.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby john9blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:47 am

then why continue to post?

i have never seen a theist degrade to sarcasm and ad-hominem, whereas probably 3/4 of the atheists on this forum will do so. why do you guys think that is? i thought atheists could have compassion and a moral compass?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:52 am

john9blue wrote:then why continue to post?

i have never seen a theist degrade to sarcasm and ad-hominem, whereas probably 3/4 of the atheists on this forum will do so. why do you think that is?


Who knows? Some people just like to argue.

Really? You haven't been reading enough, then. Viceroy especially is fairly adversarial in his "false hypothesis" thread.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby john9blue on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:58 am

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Who knows? Some people just like to argue.

Really? You haven't been reading enough, then. Viceroy especially is fairly adversarial in his "false hypothesis" thread.

-TG


i haven't posted in that thread, but reading through the lsat few pages, he doesn't seem to be all that bad. got any examples?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby chang50 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 3:12 am

john9blue wrote:then why continue to post?

i have never seen a theist degrade to sarcasm and ad-hominem, whereas probably 3/4 of the atheists on this forum will do so. why do you guys think that is? i thought atheists could have compassion and a moral compass?


Actually I would prefer sarcasm and ad hominem to the threats of eternal suffering and pain theists spew out regularly.But the most objectionable thing is the sort of condescension typified in your last sentence,assuming the high moral ground with no justification,thats what really boils my piss.
User avatar
Captain chang50
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:54 am
Location: pattaya,thailand

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby waauw on Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:54 am

john9blue wrote:this topic is pathetic.

if this were a judged debate, chiro and viceroy would be crushing you idiots.

just because you are in the majority (and, IMO, correct) opinion doesn't mean you get to circlejerk and post stupid trolling flaming bullshit


A lot of times we have answered very extensively to their bullshit. However every single time they ignore half the arguments layed out on our side, not wanting to admit their mistakes. Cuz come one, how can chiro even think the theory of evolution explains the formation of earth... and how can they even think that nor Israel, nor Georgia(according to viceroy) haven't been invaded by any empire in the past 3000 years?

On top of that they keep posting a lot of the same information over and over and over again even though we already responded to them.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:35 am

universalchiro wrote:The next question would be well did he grab dinosaurs? The answer is yes. All dinosaurs are reptiles. the flood changed the conditions of the earth. Gravity was increased by about 25%. And oxygen concentration was reduced by 50%. Both those two things would change the genome over time and the result would be length of life is reduced and the size of life is reduced. After the flood age of life reduced with each passing generation. From Noah 900+, his son 750+, next son 550+, next son 450+, next generation son 350+, next generation son 275+, next son 250+, then came the book of Job. In the book of Job, there are Behemoth creatures with tails as large as Cedar trees. Cedar trees in Mesopotamian region grew 50-75 feet tall.


The bold part in red is interesting. I should point out that the current mass of the earth is 5.972E24 kg. Gravity is caused by mass so you are saying at one point the earth's mass was increased by and additional amount of mass equal to 1/4 that of the original earth. That's a lot of mass!

Ironically there was a roughly 50% oxygen decrease at the time of the extinction of the dinosaurs. But that was well before humans came on the scene.
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:20 pm

waauw wrote:
john9blue wrote:this topic is pathetic.

if this were a judged debate, chiro and viceroy would be crushing you idiots.

just because you are in the majority (and, IMO, correct) opinion doesn't mean you get to circlejerk and post stupid trolling flaming bullshit


A lot of times we have answered very extensively to their bullshit. However every single time they ignore half the arguments layed out on our side, not wanting to admit their mistakes. Cuz come one, how can chiro even think the theory of evolution explains the formation of earth... and how can they even think that nor Israel, nor Georgia(according to viceroy) haven't been invaded by any empire in the past 3000 years?

On top of that they keep posting a lot of the same information over and over and over again even though we already responded to them.


TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Who knows? Some people just like to argue.

Really? You haven't been reading enough, then. Viceroy especially is fairly adversarial in his "false hypothesis" thread.


What I have seen is a lot of false answers and the gradual changing of the topic. I am accused of starting a false thread and being hostile and adversarial but I seriously doubt that those who make such claims even bother to read what I wrote. Right from the start the comments are like, "Wow, you read that long ass OP?" And the Reply was, "Hell No..." Read it for yourself in my own "False Thread."

In the thread I even happen to mention that anyone who does not agree with the theory of evolution is frown upon by the maority of the so called intellectuals who buy into the theory. I stated it like this...

[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.


So as any intelligent person can see from the thread the only one's being adversarial are the supposedly enlighten majority that accept the false theory of evolution as fact. If I have responded like wise it was due to my purely human reaction to such negative comments instead of actually proving to me where I was wrong in my "Long Ass Thread."

Right in the thread I posted the evidence against the theory of evolution with the example of the Horse exhibit being a fake. In replies I received, "You don't know what you are talking about because 'Micro-evolution' has been reproduced in a lab with germs and viruses, so that proves that evolution is real and you are just plain stupid,..."

But the evidence which the theory is based on is the fossils and not that mutations do occur. So the actual thread topic was never really addressed but as I stated the topic changed and false replies to the facts provided. The very same thing that I see in one thread I see in the other.

The very first comment on this page at the top is...

Symmetry wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Image


Are you really still posting this?


And my answer is; This is the topic that I wish to discuss. I am not debating the issue but I am providing evidence to support my beliefs. But apparently to a lot of God hating athiest, anyone who believes otherwise simply deserves a good bashing. The evidence presented in this thread and in mine are not really being examined or discussed but there is a lot of anger towards anyone who accepts this evidence.

That's what I see.

This thread is, "Post any evidence for God here!" But when people post the evidence they quickly get bashed. What are we to make of this except that this entire thread appears like some kind of bait and bash thread towards the unsuspecting?
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Symmetry on Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:27 pm

Yet, you clearly don't believe it is a "fact", nor do supporters of facts over faith. Still you put it into every argument you make.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby waauw on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:01 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:What I have seen is a lot of false answers and the gradual changing of the topic. I am accused of starting a false thread and being hostile and adversarial but I seriously doubt that those who make such claims even bother to read what I wrote. Right from the start the comments are like, "Wow, you read that long ass OP?" And the Reply was, "Hell No..." Read it for yourself in my own "False Thread."

In the thread I even happen to mention that anyone who does not agree with the theory of evolution is frown upon by the maority of the so called intellectuals who buy into the theory. I stated it like this...

[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.


So as any intelligent person can see from the thread the only one's being adversarial are the supposedly enlighten majority that accept the false theory of evolution as fact. If I have responded like wise it was due to my purely human reaction to such negative comments instead of actually proving to me where I was wrong in my "Long Ass Thread."

Right in the thread I posted the evidence against the theory of evolution with the example of the Horse exhibit being a fake. In replies I received, "You don't know what you are talking about because 'Micro-evolution' has been reproduced in a lab with germs and viruses, so that proves that evolution is real and you are just plain stupid,..."

But the evidence which the theory is based on is the fossils and not that mutations do occur. So the actual thread topic was never really addressed but as I stated the topic changed and false replies to the facts provided. The very same thing that I see in one thread I see in the other.

The very first comment on this page at the top is...

Symmetry wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Image


Are you really still posting this?


And my answer is; This is the topic that I wish to discuss. I am not debating the issue but I am providing evidence to support my beliefs. But apparently to a lot of God hating athiest, anyone who believes otherwise simply deserves a good bashing. The evidence presented in this thread and in mine are not really being examined or discussed but there is a lot of anger towards anyone who accepts this evidence.

That's what I see.

This thread is, "Post any evidence for God here!" But when people post the evidence they quickly get bashed. What are we to make of this except that this entire thread appears like some kind of bait and bash thread towards the unsuspecting?


I can't speak for everyone, but I personally did start of by reading what you and your buddy posted. I even answered extensively time after time. The problem I have with the responses you guys gave back is that oftentimes you ignore half the arguments given to you and you do not seem willing to admit to mistakes. I've made mistakes before and I know that. It's human to make mistakes and I've admitted to some mistakes I made in the past already(referring to some contextual problems regarding Bible for example). So this is one of my frustration points, though I have to admit that if you'd admit once you'd probably never hear the end of it from some of the people here.

Additionally you don't sound very polite yourself either(not always anyway). I refer for example to your poll that you have running in the other thread. You basically offer 2 kinds of options: accepting that evolution is still but a theory or believing in Santa. This makes it sound like you are making fun of every evolutionist out there, comparing evolution to a childs' tale. Now personally I believe evolution is right and I have my reasons for that, though I accept the fact that it is still not fully proven(I still see it as probable instead of certain). And to me reading that poll for the first time made me feel insulted. I agree some people here have been disrespectful, but to start insulting the entire evolutionist community in this way is going waaaay too far.

Lastly I just want to let you know that I understand when you guys post your information over and over again if it's just in response to someone else's argument. However chiro keeps acting as if he responds to the first post of this thread, and he basically keeps saying the same thing over and over again and that does get old after a while.
Last edited by waauw on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby waauw on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:16 pm

anyhow... to get this topic back on track I wan't to ask the literalist believers, who believe the same thing as what chiro mentioned,
how do you explain the earth had less oxygen and more gravitypull because of 'the flood'?

universalchiro wrote:The next question would be well did he grab dinosaurs? The answer is yes. All dinosaurs are reptiles. the flood changed the conditions of the earth. Gravity was increased by about 25%. And oxygen concentration was reduced by 50%. Both those two things would change the genome over time and the result would be length of life is reduced and the size of life is reduced. After the flood age of life reduced with each passing generation. From Noah 900+, his son 750+, next son 550+, next son 450+, next generation son 350+, next generation son 275+, next son 250+, then came the book of Job. In the book of Job, there are Behemoth creatures with tails as large as Cedar trees. Cedar trees in Mesopotamian region grew 50-75 feet tall.
User avatar
Lieutenant waauw
 
Posts: 4756
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:46 pm

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:26 pm

waauw wrote:anyhow... to get this topic back on track I wan't to ask the literalist believers, who believe the same thing as what chiro mentioned,
how do you explain the earth had less oxygen and more gravitypull because of 'the flood'?

universalchiro wrote:The next question would be well did he grab dinosaurs? The answer is yes. All dinosaurs are reptiles. the flood changed the conditions of the earth. Gravity was increased by about 25%. And oxygen concentration was reduced by 50%. Both those two things would change the genome over time and the result would be length of life is reduced and the size of life is reduced. After the flood age of life reduced with each passing generation. From Noah 900+, his son 750+, next son 550+, next son 450+, next generation son 350+, next generation son 275+, next son 250+, then came the book of Job. In the book of Job, there are Behemoth creatures with tails as large as Cedar trees. Cedar trees in Mesopotamian region grew 50-75 feet tall.

waauw,
I'm alone in this theory. Here is my hypothesis: The earth had weaker gravity before the flood and greater oxygen concentration before the flood. As a result of the flood: gravity was increased approximately 25% and oxygen was decreased approximately 50%.

Here are the facts:
A. Oxygen:
1. Amber bubbles that have captured atmosphere concentration in the past, scientist have determined oxygen concentration was higher when the sap oozed out of the tree, captured the oxygen and then petrified.
2. Glacier core samples have also revealed that in the past, atmosphere oxygen concentration was 50% higher than today's value.
3. Science has grown insects in hypoxia and hyperoxia to determine if variations in oxygen concentration effect or affected life. Their findings was substantially yes. Hypoxia environments resulted in smaller insects as a whole. Those that had no size change, had enlarged tracheal tubules to bring in higher volumes of air, which provided less room for other organs. the result of enlarged tracheal tubes and smaller other tissue, was smaller muscles, smaller tendons, smaller organs. Which means the insects ran slower, less endurance, less thriving of life. Conversely, the insects grown in hyperoxia, were larger. those that had same size, had smaller tracheal tubules and larger other tissues, so they ran faster, longer, equaling a thriving life.
4. Humans suffer from a whole host of ailments associated with lack or loss of oxygen. From ischemia, necrosis, pale, lethargic, heart attack, death, etc. This is corroborated in the Bible Leviticus 17:11 "life is in the blood". Blood carries oxygen. And God breathed life into the living: Genesis 2:7,. So life thrives with more oxygen, and life suffers with a lack of oxygen.

B. Gravity:
1. Some dinosaurs weighed 100 tons. Their porous bone structure would not be able to sustain such massive tonnage in this current earth's gravitational system. But scientist observe the porous bone structure of dinosaurs and compare that to similar porous bone structures of birds and assume dinosaurs evolved into birds. After all, both lay eggs. But dinos layed leather eggs and birds lay calcium shelled eggs, wholly different.
2. Astronauts that spend a great deal of time in space will lose bone density/mass. One study of an astronaut one year in space lost 14% bone mass.
3. If one gains a lot of weight, bone density will increase to handle the load.
4a. Moon's gravity causes 2 ocean tides per day. Each ocean tide, takes angular momentum out of the earth's rotational velocity. Each reduction in the earth's angular momentum, reduces centripetal force thereby increasing the net effect of gravity, though the mass of the earth had not changed.
4b. The moon uses this energy from the earth's angular momentum to move away from the earth at 3inches per year. Which means as we go back in time, the moon was closer and thereby took more angular momentum out the earth's spin. Which means the moon slowed the earth's spin exponentially greater in past millenniums.
5. Space dust adds 80,000lbs to the earth's mass each year, increasing earth's mass.
6. Each impacting asteroid and comet on the earth (only the very large ones), takes away angular momentum from the earth's spin velocity and does the same as B4.

C. Dinosaurs are reptiles. Reptiles will grow as long as they are alive.

D. Non-observable evidence, based on faith and deductive reasoning, this is not proven but a theory:
1. Genesis 1:2 "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." At this point in time the universe was extremely small. How do we know this? Job 9:8, Jeremiah 51:15, clarify God stretched out the heavens. Why is this important? Well this is in harmony with science finding the universe is still expanding, meaning at one point it was small in size. Also, waters is in plural form: This could mean massive volume, but also simply that water existed in gas, liquid and solid state. How is this possible? Since the universe was densely packed, this would increase pressure and thereby reduce the freezing point. Also, if the waters had a high alkaline concentration (Na, Ca, P, Mg, Cl,etc), this would also reduce the freezing point. therefore allow waters to remain in 3 states (liquid, gas, solid).

2. Genesis 1:6- "Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. There was evening and there was morning, a second day." There were two expanses created, for later the name of the expanse, heaven, is in plural form. The first expanse becomes our atmosphere, the second expanse becomes space where all the galaxies reside. So this verse indicates there was an opening in the middle of water that became our atmosphere. How can we be sure there were more than one expanse? Paul was caught up to the "3rd heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4. So the first heaven is our atmosphere, with waters below and waters above. the second heaven is the universe, the third heaven is either distally beyond the universe or within our universe in a higher dimension (unknown). This 1st heaven/atmosphere/expanse is important to our gravity. How? The waters below the expanse become the seas in verse 9 "Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas". The waters above the expanse stayed there until the global flood of Genesis 7.

3. Waters above the atmosphere would increase atmospheric pressure. This increased atmospheric pressure would create a buoyancy effect, thereby reducing the net effect of gravity without changing the mass of the earth.

4. When the global flood came and rained for 40 days and 40 nights, this would increase the mass of the earth, thusly increasing gravity.

5. Prior to the flood: There was a canopy of water surrounding the earth, which created a green house effect.
a1. Ambient global temperatures: Genesis 3 "Adam and Eve were naked", no one is naked unless the temperatures are ambient..
a2. Ambient global temperatures: would mean no wind: Genesis 8: After the flood, massive polar ice caps formed.. Verse 1 "God caused a wind to pass over the earth".
a3. With Ambient global temperatures: There would be no wind, therefore no hydrological cycle and no rain: Genesis 2:5b "...For the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground". The only way this would be possible if the water tablet in the ground was high, essentially massive amounts of water underground: Genesis 7:11b "...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood gates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights". So not only did it rain, but water burst out of the earth from massive water caverns.

6. With a canopy of water surrounding the earth, before the global flood, the oceans would be much smaller, which means more land would be usable for vegetation and allow more production of oxygen. After the flood, there would be polar ice caps, desert because no ambient temperatures and massive oceans covering useful land. Hence oxygen drops by 50%.

6. Prior to the flood, the seas were not as deep as today, the mountains were not as high as today, the massive catastrophe of water bursting out of the earth in Genesis 7:11 caused great tectonic shifting.

7. As a result of the canopy of water coming down on earth, this highly alkaline water, to keep in liquid form while hovering around our atmosphere, would kill off a great deal of aquatic based behemoths that couldn't adapt to the change from fresh water to salt water. Potentially explains how water based dinosaurs died.

8. This massive amount of water coming down to earth in the global flood, would increase earth's gravity and decrease earth's oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. Paleontologist determine that dinosaurs nostril and lung capacity could not sustain them in today's oxygen concentration. Ergo, when dinos lived oxygen was higher, the flood sending that much water to form massive oceans, and the loss of the canopy of water equaled a loss of ambient global temperatures, resulting in polar ice caps and deserts, further reducing vegetation, further reducing oxygen production.

Summary: A global flood, explains the reduction of oxygen concentration and the increase in gravity.
The moon's gravity also increases earth's gravity (see Gravity: 4a & 4b)
That before the flood earth's gravity was 25% weaker, is an approximation.
that before the flood, oxygen concentration was 50% higher, is an approximation.

Since dinosaurs are reptiles. Imagine a reptile living in a high oxygen concentration and weaker gravity environment, that reptile would live a long time and grow very big. We may over time as the genome changes and further generations adapt to weak gravity and high oxygen, see very large reptiles. We may call them dinosaurs.

After the flood, life that survived would have to adapt to this change in increased gravity and decrease oxygen. This adaptation would be manifest in reduction in longevity and size. the Longevity of life is seen with genealogies in the Bible from Noah and his descendants to when the book of Job was written. the ages until death goes from Noah 950, Shem 600, Arpachshad 438, Shelah 433, Eber 464, Peleg 239, Reu 239, Serug 234, Nahor 148. .... Job lived 220+ years, which puts his book 5 generations after Noah. You can see the genome of humans adapting and length of life reducing. But Job writes about dinosaurs. He calls them Behemoths and Leviathans. But one of them has a tail as a Cedar Tree. Cedar Trees in Mesopotamian area grew to 50 to 75 to 100 tall. So a tail that long is only dinosauric. So as dinosaurs were also adapting to the change in gravity and oxygen, they were still noticed by cultures and pinned about them in books, cave walls, Mayan carvings, etc.

If earth's gravity was weaker in past, we would expect to see prior creatures that lived in that environment to have porous bone structure. And they did.
If earth's gravity was weaker in the past, we would expect to see very large life. And we have evidence of dinosaurs.
If earth's gravity was weaker in the past, we would expect to see physics showing how this is measurable. And it does. The moon's mass is measurable and calculating how much of the earth's angular momentum is lost we can calculate.
If earth's gravity was weaker in the past, and this supposedly altered life, we would expect to see life today altered by change in gravity. And it does. Astronauts lose bone density in space. Obese people gain bone mass to compensate for extra pull.
If earth's gravity was weaker in the past because of a faster spin, we would expect to see changes in gravity today from changes in earth's rotational velocity. And it does. Gravity at the poles (9.83m/s/s) is greater than gravity at the equator (9.79m/s/s).
If earth's gravity was weaker in the past, we would expect earth's mass increasing each year. This is trace, but 80,000lbs per year of space debris is added.

Gravity Theory summary:
1. With a canopy of water providing increased atmospheric pressure, this counters gravity and creates a buoyancy. Net effect is a weaker gravity.
2. With massive amounts of water surrounding the atmosphere, pre-flood, this reduces earth's mass, which reduces earth's gravity.
3. With the moon slowing the earth's spin, this decreases centripetal force, thereby net increases gravity without adding any mass to the earth.
Combining these results in earth's gravity being approximately 25% weaker before the flood.

Oxygen Hypothesis:
If O2 concentration in the atmosphere was greater in the past, we would expect to see life larger in the past. And it was. Fossil evidence.
If O2 concentration in the atmosphere was greater in the past and this altered life, we would expect to see life altered today with changes in O2 concentration. And there are. Life suffers with lack of O2 and life thrives with O2.
If O2 concentration in the atmosphere was greater in the past, we would expect to see evidence of this. There are in glacier core samples and amber, both show 50% higher O2 concentration.
If O2 concentration in the atmosphere was greater in the past, we would expect to see dinosaurs with smaller lung and nostril capacities as compared to creatures today on size basis. Dinos couldn't live in today's O2, not enough O2 for their small lungs.

Oxygen Theory Summary:
With glacier core samples and amber samples indicating O2 concentration was 50% higher.
1. The global flood produced massive oceans, reducing the amount of usable land for vegetation growth.
2. The loss of a canopy of water surrounding the atmosphere that came down in a flood, would cause temperature differences and subsequently result in polar ice caps and deserts. Both polar ice caps and deserts limit vegetation growth and reduce O2 concentration.
3. Oxygen results in how much life thrives. Take away or reduce O2, life suffers. Increase O2 concentration, life thrives, gets larger, grows faster and lives longer.

this is a first rough draft, forgive spelling errors and grammar errors. I have clearly stated this is a theory based on deduction of some facts and of some evidence and I stand alone in this theory. I am ready for your questions.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:34 pm

Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:14 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?


What in the world does that question have to do with the step by step outline of points that were just made?

Pardon my french but that sounds like a bullshit/loaded question trying to once again change the topic rather than addressing the logical points just make.

So often am I accuse of avoiding question and this is why. Not only are there like 10 or 20 questions for every comment that I make but most of them are Bullshit/loaded question designed to change the topic. Why can't you just address the points. Just pick one and discuss it, instead of showing us all that you're just so full of shit.

Now my question would be...

If the moon moves away from the earth then at some point in time the earth and the moon were closer together. So then if we back track this... At what point or how long ago would the earth and the moon be at one and the same point in space; And would this indicate that the moon came from the earth and is actually a piece of earth orbiting the planet earth? And would you please provide a website for this if you can. Thank you!

Or could the moon have begun moving away from the earth after the flood? Please provide website if you can. Thanks!
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:19 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?


What in the world does that question have to do with the step by step outline of points that were just made?


Would you ask a Buddhist monk to fix your car--assuming he has no knowledge about car repair?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Viceroy63 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:33 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?


What in the world does that question have to do with the step by step outline of points that were just made?


Would you ask a Buddhist monk to fix your car--assuming he has no knowledge about car repair?


Thanks for this excellent example of changing the topic for us. Why can't you just look into the propose logical points presented and come back with a response to any one of them; Just one. Or if you have a genuine question about the presented facts then make the question! But there is no need to go into the back ground of anyone for anything. Why? What does it matter? And how could you possibly confirm it anyway?

But to answer your question, I am not an auto mechanic and I believe in God. Even so I break out my own tools and change my own oil and do other repairs on my car, knowing very little about automotive repair. So what if I am not a knowledgeable mechanic?

You may not believe in God but if you genuinely and from the heart ask God to open your eyes and give you wisdom and understanding, God is not going to care if you are an auto mechanic or astronomer or even a Buddhist monk either, in order to hear your prayers from the heart. It just doesn't matter!
Image
An Unproven Hypothesis; The Rise of Ignorance.
Ultimate Proof of Creation. Click the show tab below.
show
User avatar
Major Viceroy63
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:34 pm
Location: A little back water, hill billy hick place called Earth.

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:54 pm

Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?


What in the world does that question have to do with the step by step outline of points that were just made?


Would you ask a Buddhist monk to fix your car--assuming he has no knowledge about car repair?


Thanks for this excellent example of changing the topic for us. Why can't you just look into the propose logical points presented and come back with a response to any one of them; Just one. Or if you have a genuine question about the presented facts then make the question! But there is no need to go into the back ground of anyone for anything. Why? What does it matter? And how could you possibly confirm it anyway?

But to answer your question, I am not an auto mechanic and I believe in God. Even so I break out my own tools and change my own oil and do other repairs on my car, knowing very little about automotive repair. So what if I am not a knowledgeable mechanic?

You may not believe in God but if you genuinely and from the heart ask God to open your eyes and give you wisdom and understanding, God is not going to care if you are an auto mechanic or astronomer or even a Buddhist monk either, in order to hear your prayers from the heart. It just doesn't matter!


Ah, thanks for not answering the question (changing the question and going on an irrelevant spiel doesn't help your case).

Knowing someone's knowledge of a particular field allows the audience to determine if this mad-hatter or intellectual deserves their time. You wouldn't waste your time getting a lecture from a Russian economist* about Christian fundamentalism in the US from the 1940s to 1960s, right?

    *(Assuming of course that the economist knows nothing or hardly anything worthy about Christian fundamentalism of that time).

So, do ya get it?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby Lootifer on Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:06 am

Maybe you should be a little more obvious BBS...

Would you go and listen to a blind person discussing landscape photography?

Or maybe an illiterate person discussing William Blake poetry?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby tzor on Wed Jun 05, 2013 9:01 am

universalchiro wrote:Gravity Theory summary:
1. With a canopy of water providing increased atmospheric pressure, this counters gravity and creates a buoyancy. Net effect is a weaker gravity.
2. With massive amounts of water surrounding the atmosphere, pre-flood, this reduces earth's mass, which reduces earth's gravity.
3. With the moon slowing the earth's spin, this decreases centripetal force, thereby net increases gravity without adding any mass to the earth.
Combining these results in earth's gravity being approximately 25% weaker before the flood.


Let's take these one at a time. Starting with 3. Here is a calculation necessary to equalize gravity ...

Right now, the surface velocity of the Earth is 1674 km/hr so for your scenario to become reality, the Earth would have to be spinning 17 times faster than it is now.


Even at only 25% the earth would not be spinning that fast back then. Yes the earth is slowing down ... but not that rapidly.

Now let's get to 1. Now that we have trivialized for force of a faster rotating earth we will still need a whole lot of water suspended in the sky. How is it suspended? How thick is this layer? How can any light get through? Finally we get to the unasked question of 1; where did all this water go after the flood? You claimed it still added to the mass, but we should still be flooded if this was the case.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:55 am

tzor wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Gravity Theory summary:
1. With a canopy of water providing increased atmospheric pressure, this counters gravity and creates a buoyancy. Net effect is a weaker gravity.
2. With massive amounts of water surrounding the atmosphere, pre-flood, this reduces earth's mass, which reduces earth's gravity.
3. With the moon slowing the earth's spin, this decreases centripetal force, thereby net increases gravity without adding any mass to the earth.
Combining these results in earth's gravity being approximately 25% weaker before the flood.


Let's take these one at a time. Starting with 3. Here is a calculation necessary to equalize gravity ...

Right now, the surface velocity of the Earth is 1674 km/hr so for your scenario to become reality, the Earth would have to be spinning 17 times faster than it is now.


Even at only 25% the earth would not be spinning that fast back then. Yes the earth is slowing down ... but not that rapidly.

Now let's get to 1. Now that we have trivialized for force of a faster rotating earth we will still need a whole lot of water suspended in the sky. How is it suspended? How thick is this layer? How can any light get through? Finally we get to the unasked question of 1; where did all this water go after the flood? You claimed it still added to the mass, but we should still be flooded if this was the case.

The points build and add on each other. Sure no single one point is sufficient alone, but that wasn't the theory. The theory is that the spinning earth is slowing, because of the moon. So going backwards in time, the earth spun faster. This creates a centripetal force and partially nullifies gravity, not fully, but fractionally. Then add to that the canopy of water around the atmosphere creates a buoyancy which partially nullifies gravity, not fully, but fractionally. Then add to that space dust and comet and asteroid impacts, which adds to the earth's mass and increases gravity, not a lot, but fractionally. Then add the energy of the asteroid and comet impacts that would slow the earth's spin, not a lot, but fractionally, and this would reduce centripetal force thereby increasing gravity, not a lot, but fractionally. Then add the canopy of water raining on the earth for 40 days & nights, this would add to the mass of the earth and increase gravity. It's the sum total that effects gravity. Not one part. This is clearly written in the prior post.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:56 am

universalchiro wrote:
tzor wrote:
universalchiro wrote:Gravity Theory summary:
1. With a canopy of water providing increased atmospheric pressure, this counters gravity and creates a buoyancy. Net effect is a weaker gravity.
2. With massive amounts of water surrounding the atmosphere, pre-flood, this reduces earth's mass, which reduces earth's gravity.
3. With the moon slowing the earth's spin, this decreases centripetal force, thereby net increases gravity without adding any mass to the earth.
Combining these results in earth's gravity being approximately 25% weaker before the flood.


Let's take these one at a time. Starting with 3. Here is a calculation necessary to equalize gravity ...

Right now, the surface velocity of the Earth is 1674 km/hr so for your scenario to become reality, the Earth would have to be spinning 17 times faster than it is now.


Even at only 25% the earth would not be spinning that fast back then. Yes the earth is slowing down ... but not that rapidly.

Now let's get to 1. Now that we have trivialized for force of a faster rotating earth we will still need a whole lot of water suspended in the sky. How is it suspended? How thick is this layer? How can any light get through? Finally we get to the unasked question of 1; where did all this water go after the flood? You claimed it still added to the mass, but we should still be flooded if this was the case.

The points build and add on each other.


Like a pile of mad-hatter turds.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:15 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Question: what's your background in astronomy/physics?

At first I took this post as a compliment. But your responses revealed the error in your thinking. The focus is not on me personally, but the theory stated prior. Your question is illogical for several reasons:
1. You are basing whether you value what I say on my education, this would be appropriate if I was running for public office or was a mechanic preparing to work on your car and you were relying on my credentials to determine future outcomes that directly or indirectly effect you. But the information is past, viewable and my future performance is not applicable on what was already stated in the prior post. The prior post stands alone and needs not my credentials to validate. For even out of the mouth of babes will come profound wisdom at times. And the most recognized erudite can be a fool.

2. I don't want to boast in myself to validate the theory, but my education is in the top 1.4% of the world population. Which is to say, I have more education than 98.6% of the populatin. And I graduated with honors in the top 5% of my class. But your reasoning for asking this question is flawed, you are determining whether to value my theory based on my background, but then by your logic, you would be unqualified to even pose a question to me, since your background is not a peer to me.

3. The theory I stated is not about me, it's about evidence and deductive reasoning that supports a Biblical model of the creation account and flood account in Genesis. So your direction of focusing on me, doesn't relate to the thread topic of "post any evidence for God here". Which I did. So please stay on topic and move away from personal attacks to evidence, logic, facts, science, physics and deduction. Thank you.

But let's set your flawed red herring question aside, for you didn't realize the error in your logic. But I'm proud of you for you have graduated from one liner statements that add nothing to the debate, to posing questions to learn.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here

Postby universalchiro on Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:38 am

Viceroy63 wrote:If the moon moves away from the earth then at some point in time the earth and the moon were closer together. So then if we back track this... At what point or how long ago would the earth and the moon be at one and the same point in space; And would this indicate that the moon came from the earth and is actually a piece of earth orbiting the planet earth? And would you please provide a website for this if you can. Thank you!

Or could the moon have begun moving away from the earth after the flood? Please provide website if you can. Thanks!

Since the moon is moving away from the earth based on the moon's mass taking angular momentum out of the earth's spin. Then the recession of 3inches per year, is not linear. Which means that the further back in time one goes, the faster the moon moved away from the earth. So the rate that the moon moved away from the earth was exponentially greater with each prior millennium.

With the discovery by Dr. Roche, he determined that there is a point of recession where the moon can't be any closer to the earth. Why? Their mass would cause disintegration of the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

What we know and can calculate:
the distance of the moon from the earth: 239,000 miles
The current rate of recession: 3 inches per year
The distance the moon can't be any closer to the earth or else disintegration: 11,000 miles.

The problem: The rate of recession is not linear. with each passing millennium the rate of recession reduces. So going back in time the rate would get exponentially larger the further back in time.

Utilizing the scientific method, there needs to be only one proof of younger earth or moon to refute the great age requirements of evolution. With what we know of the moon's recession rate, it doesn't come close to the 4 billion year old earth model, for the moon would be on the surface of the earth way before the evolutionary proposed dates.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-age-for-moon-earth/
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users