Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Number37]

Is that the best you have? What's that got to do with a global flood event?

In an iceage there is less water covering the planet.

There is NO evidence in support of a global flood event. Present any evidence that suggests there was such an event here.

Sea levels drop more than 100m during Ice Ages.
At the completion of the Ice Age, does the water just magically reappear in the seas?

 

[Roylion]

During Ice Ages sea levels drop more than 100m.
Do you think that would be enough to cover the landmass?

What? Do you know what you are talking about?

That doesn't mean there is any less or more water. The reason that sea levels drop during an iceage is that much of the water on the planet is concentrated in icecaps closer to the poles.

Show me the evidence in support of a global flood event.

 

[Roylion]

Sea levels drop more than 100m during Ice Ages.
At the completion of the Ice Age, does the water just magically reappear in the seas?

Really? Please. That is laughable.

Not magically at all. The water is meltwater from the receding ice caps.

Show me the evidence in support of a global flood event.

 

[Number37]

What? Do you know what you are talking about?

That doesn't mean there is any less or more water. The reason that sea levels drop during an iceage is that much of the water on the planet is concentrated in icecaps closer to the poles.

Show me the evidence in support of a global flood event.

It's called an Ice Age because the ice is not just concentrated close to the poles.

 

[Number37]

Really? Please. That is laughable.

Not magically at all. The water is meltwater from the receding ice caps.

Show me the evidence in support of a global flood event.

How much water do you reckon you would need to take out of the seas for the sea levels to drop more than 100m ACROSS THE GLOBE?

It's just a little meltwater. LOL

 

[Roylion]

It's called an Ice Age because the ice is not just concentrated close to the poles.

Where on earth are you getting this from?

That's exactly why is it called an Ice Age.



Keep going. You're giving me a good laugh.

When are you going to show me the evidence in support of a global flood event?

 

[Roylion]

How much water do you reckon you would need to take out of the seas for the sea levels to drop more than 100m ACROSS THE GLOBE?

It's just a little meltwater. LOL

Go and do some basic science. You have no idea.

When are you going to show me the evidence in support of a global flood event?

Here's what the planet would be like if all ice on the planet melted.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Nearly every miracle Jesus performed was because of faith. Faith comes from reading the Bible.

Confirmation bias is an assumption.

Now go ahead and evidence these claims of miracle production please?
“Faith” belief without evidence, great, so it’s circular reasoning you’d like to add to your numerous collection of fallacious logic abilities, I’ll add them if you’d like?
Maybe educate yourself in the laws of logic and investigate logic fallacies and get back to us?

And no it’s not an assumption, you went looking for the god of the Old Testament, the Bible and Quran and lo and behold, instead of finding Krishna, Vishnu, Thor etc., is the exact meaning of confirmation bias.

 

[Number37]

Go and do some basic science. You have no idea.

When are you going to show me the evidence in support of a global flood event?

Here's what the planet would like like if all ice on the planet melted.

So sea levels drop 100m and all that water magically gets to the poles, then when it's all done all that water magically gets back to seas.

I thought all sorts of climate-y stuff happens to make it all happen.
Turns out it's just all magic. One minute it's in the seas, nek minnit it's in a glacier, but only at the poles because we don't wanna upset science-y people, nek minnit it's back in the seas. Move along nothing to see here.

 

[Gethelred]

During Ice Ages sea levels drop more than 100m.
Do you think that would be enough to cover the landmass?

If I'm to take that at face value, that would imply that you think there's currently enough ice in the north and south poles to serve as a counterpart for an ice age. Would you say that's an accurate depiction of your statement?

 

[Roylion]

So sea levels drop 100m and all that water magically gets to the poles, then when it's all done all that water magically gets back to seas.

It's not magic. It's called science.

Here's a picture to help you understand the process.

I thought all sorts of climate-y stuff happens to make it all happen.

It does.

But we weren't talking about that.

I'm asking you to provide evidence of a global flood event that has occurred in history. Would you like me to define a "global flood event". as it appears you are having trouble understanding the meaning of the term?

Turns out it's just all magic. One minute it's in the seas, nek minnit it's in a glacier, but only at the poles because we don't wanna upset science-y people.

What sort of nonsense is this?

Perhaps you should attend my Year 7 Geography class. We covered the process of ice ages a few months ago and the contribution and process of global cooling and global warming. We looked at the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocene Climatic Optimum. I can see that you would need a number of extra lessons to get your head around it though. My best 12 and 13 year old students picked it up in under an hour.

 

[Osho]

Well I had the bible drummed into me from an early age and the last thing it gave me was faith (which, let's be honest here, is just wishful thinking).

My atheist uncle used to use his childhood bible to reach the liquor shelf. Like Finnegan he fell when replacing the bottle, and also like Finnegan he rose from the fall, intact. I think resurrections are metaphors.

So did Rembrandt, whose paintings of resurrections Lazerus and JC often betray his skepticism by the buffoon expressions he placed on the revived faces.

 

[Number37]

If I'm to take that at face value, that would imply that you think there's currently enough ice in the north and south poles to serve as a counterpart for an ice age. Would you say that's an accurate depiction of your statement?

I don't know what you're saying, but you did not understand what I said.

71% of the Earth is covered in water.
If you took that water that covered the 71%, do you think it would cover the other 29%? The simple answer is yes.
Obviously if you took the water that covered the 71% the 71% would no longer be covered in water.

Some theories conclude that humans ended up all around the globe because during Ice Ages massive landbridges formed from the sea levels dropping, allowing humans to simply walk from A to B.

 

[Osho]

Go and do some basic science. You have no idea.

When are you going to show me the evidence in support of a global flood event?

Here's what the planet would be like if all ice on the planet melted.

View attachment 1292325

Geewizz, there goes south aussie.

 

[Number37]

It's not magic. It's called science.

Here's a picture to help you understand the process.

View attachment 1292330




It does.

But we weren't talking about that.

I'm asking you to provide evidence of a global flood event that has occurred in history. Would you like me to define a "global flood event". as it appears you are having trouble understanding the meaning of the term?



What sort of nonsense is this?

Perhaps you should attend my Year 7 Geography class. We covered the process of ice ages a few months ago and the contribution and process of global cooling and global warming. We looked at the Last Glacial Maximum and the Holocene Climatic Optimum. I can see that you would need a number of extra lessons to get your head around it though. My best 12 and 13 year old students picked it up in under an hour.

How much condensation do you reckon enough water to drop sea levels by more than 100m would create?
You reckon it would be just a passing shower?
I didn't attend your 7 geography lesson ( if they're as misleading as your history lessons, thank F), but I reckon it would either need to condensate a little bit every day for a f'ing long time or it would be coming down in truckloads for a shorter time. Either way....
That's before we get to it all going back to whenceforth it came.
Tell us, what words of wisdom did you provide those unfortunate enough to be in any of your year 7 classes about how all that water got back to whenceforth it came?

 

[carltonchelsea]

Hitchens, another one of those "I don't believe in God, that's soooo stupid" but I will spend my entire life talking about God....because...... reasons.
Don't you think it is a little bizarre how so many of the high profile Atheists are obsessed with religion?




Does it only apply to certain people, or everybody?

Hitchens didn’t spend his entire career attacking religion, he gives his reasons in the latter part his successful career as a writer and political analyst, wanting to break the myths of the superstitious, mostly to allow people, more so, from the Middle East to be freed from the grips of religious persecution.
It’s all widely available this information.
No, I only applied it to you in this case, because I believe you misunderstood the greater meaning behind the quote and I know you are no idiot and come to expect better of you.
I think this subject makes you emotionally irrational at times, in most other conversations and threads, your logic and reasoning are sounder than most.

 

[Number37]

My best 12 and 13 year old students picked it up in under an hour.

I can imagine your lesson plan:
Here's a wikipedia page, read it and if you have any questions I will find it on another wikipedia page.
Wikipedia is an awesome source of information. No really, it is.

 

[Gethelred]

I don't know what you're saying, but you did not understand what I said.

71% of the Earth is covered in water.
If you took that water that covered the 71%, do you think it would cover the other 29%? The simple answer is yes.
Obviously if you took the water that covered the 71% the 71% would no longer be covered in water.

Don't you hate it when people do semantics at you?

I agree that, if you took the water that currently covers 71% of the landmass and put it over the remaining 29%, for the period it would take to run back to lower points - because that is how gravity works - that 71% would indeed cover the entire land mass.

But - again - that isn't the question I asked you.

I asked you if there was enough water on earth to completely cover the surface. Why you decided to approach this question semantically is your prerogative, but it's more than a little standoffish where it doesn't have to be.

Some theories conclude that humans ended up all around the globe because during Ice Ages massive landbridges formed from the sea levels dropping, allowing humans to simply walk from A to B.

I know this. Doesn't really make it relevant to the question I asked you, though.

 

[Number37]

Hitchens didn’t spend his entire career attacking religion, he gives his reasons in the latter part his successful career as a writer and political analyst, wanting to break the myths of the superstitious, mostly to allow people, more so, from the Middle East to be freed from the grips of religious persecution.
It’s all widely available this information.
No, I only applied it to you in this case, because I believe you misunderstood the greater meaning behind the quote and I know you are no idiot and come to expect better of you.
I think this subject makes you emotionally irrational at times, in most other conversations and threads, your logic and reasoning are sounder than most.

I am a big Hitchens fan.

Am I emotionally irrational because you don't agree with me or because I am emotionally irrational?

 

[Number37]

Don't you hate it when people do semantics at you?

I agree that, if you took the water that currently covers 71% of the landmass and put it over the remaining 29%, for the period it would take to run back to lower points - because that is how gravity works - that 71% would indeed cover the entire land mass.

But - again - that isn't the question I asked you.

I asked you if there was enough water on earth to completely cover the surface. Why you decided to approach this question semantically is your prerogative, but it's more than a little standoffish where it doesn't have to be.

I know this. Doesn't really make it relevant to the question I asked you, though.

It's not me being semantic.

There is a lot of energy being expended to disprove things using semantics.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I am a big Hitchens fan.

Am I emotionally irrational because you don't agree with me or because I am emotionally irrational?

I think you’re emotionally irrational given the subject matter, simple as that.
I only really get emotionally irrational about a couple of things and religion ain’t one of them.

 

[Gethelred]

It's not me being semantic.

There is a lot of energy being expended to disprove things using semantics.

Not by me, there isn't.

Look, if you're not going to say, "I don't know the answer to your specific question," and you're not going to try to answer my question on the basis that I asked it in good faith - which I did - can you at least refrain from leading me down a rabbit hole and wasting my time?

 

[Osho]

It's not me being semantic.

There is a lot of energy being expended to disprove things using semantics.

Anti Semantic?

 

[Rosscoe]

Well I had the bible drummed into me from an early age and the last thing it gave me was faith (which, let's be honest here, is just wishful thinking).

That’s the point: you had it drummed into you. The bible is not meant to be taught like that.

 

[Rosscoe]

A miracle is an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

I see no evidence that an immortal, supernatural being or deity that is the originator/creator and ruler of the universe and exists outside time and space definitely exists. How could I?

What I do argue is that I or anyone else (despite their claims to knowledge of deities suich as Yahweh/Allah/Jesus or whatever) also cannot know the existance of such phenomena, beyond pure faith.

With faith, any imagined phenomena can be claimed as true.

Until robust, repeated supporting evidence for such a claim is presented, then I cannot ascertain its truthfulness and therefore see no reason in the meantime to believe / suppose that it is true.

Why should I accept one version of a claimed belief arrived at by faith over another claimed belief system also arrived at by faith?

Given that I'm not prepared to accept as correct or true the claimed premise of an unknowable, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient originator/creator and ruler of the universe (by whatever name they are called by their followers) by faith alone, my daily life incorporates little to no acknowledgment of such a being, other than reacting with skepticism when others invoke or claim that being's supposed omniscience, omnipresence and/or omnipotency through proselytizing their faith.



I've read the Bible many times.

I honestly doubt you would believe a miracle even if you saw one.