Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,344 members, 7,957,917 topics. Date: Wednesday, 25 September 2024 at 01:23 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Questions For Noetic2 (2490 Views)
Questions For Daddy G. O, Pastor Kumuyi & Pastor Lazarus Muoka / Questions For Logic1 (if You Have Doubts Concerning The Christian Faith) / Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists (2) (3) (4)
Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 5:40pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
The bible records a flood that wiped all living creatures off the earth. This biblical account is buttressed by several scientific evidences including: please can you explain how this "several scientific evidences" that you have listed above support the noah's flood? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Cyberfreak(f): 6:50pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
O |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 7:11pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
Cyberfreak: he just made some very wild assertions without even knowing what they means as "scientific" evidence for his mythical story so i just want him to explain them and show how they support that which he said. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Tudor3(m): 8:09pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
Oya noetic over to you. . . . . . . |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by toneyb: 8:11pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
Neotic where are you? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Cyberfreak(f): 8:11pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
J |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by toneyb: 8:16pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
Cyberfreak: , where is neotic? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by noetic2: 8:24pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
We have to reason together to answer ur questions, cos it seems like a line has been drawn. I am only interested in . . . . . . Lets start from the first: what do understand by polystrate fossils? . . . . . . . in a few words. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by toneyb: 8:31pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: You made an assertion so its up to you to explain it in the simplest of terms, I will advice you to read mazaje's post on evolution. Its up to you to explain those in simplest of terms and show how they support the noah's flood that is said to have occured word wide. Its not a difficult task at all is it? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by noetic2: 8:38pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
toneyb: I saw ur initial post, I disregarded them for "known" reasons (like I have done to all ur previous posts). where is mazaje? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 8:41pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: i am here and i am still waiting for you to provided evidence for how your "scientific evidence" supports the noah's flood. . . . . . . . |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 8:44pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
if you can't then i will go ahead and provide scientific and hostorical evidence that disprove the mythical noah's flood that never happened. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by noetic2: 9:09pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: you see. . . .This was why I wanted clarification, before I go on. Do you want me to defend/analyse my initial statement about scientific evidences that suggest noah's flood OR Do u want to debate the possibility of Noah's flood happening. I chose to do this cos I am aware of ur diversion and "lying" techniques. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 9:12pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: i want you to do the part i highlighted in bold. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 9:15pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
what is so hard neotic you should have done this already, why are you wasting time? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by noetic2: 9:39pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
I am assuming u have a basic understanding of polystrate fossils, . . . . Polystrate fossils. These are best explained as fossil trees that lie upright or prostrate above the surface of the ground. They are buried within a strata in either prostrate, oblique or upright positions. A collection of these upright trees are called a fossil forest. Some of these fossil plants are found in Nova scotia strats in sydney as well as the united states and europe and other parts of the world. There are several evidences that suggest that these fossils were not planted in their current location but were transported there by massive water. . . . . NOAH'S FLOOD. Do u at least now have an idea of what a polystate fossil is now? These evidences include that buttresses this fact include : 1. Quite unlike primordial geologist assumptions that these fossils were planted because of their long root, on closer observation, these assumption is found to be false based on the composition of these fossils, . . . .I will lay more emphasis in other evidences. There are massive sheet-like, sedimentary, flat lying deposits all over the world, which could NOT have been planted. 2. The top of the fossils on closer inspection is as preserved as the base of the fossils when unearthed from their burial spot. These other facts are deducible a. The roots are truncated: b. The roots are two feet long c: The top is broken of, it is assumed that the top might be 10-15 feet high. The truncated root implies that these trees were uprooted. . . , . . . .mazaje, from where? The broken off top suggests that it was taller and did break off along a transporting process. . . . . . . .mazaje, how did it break off? An appreciative understanding of this is deducible from the fact that many of these rootless fossils are buried individually. . . . This lay credence to the fact that these trees did not grow there but were deposited there. 3. Fossils are formed when a plant or animal dies and is buried immediately. They are not formed in lakes, seas or the ocean. The present location of these fossils supports the notion of a massive flood that happened ages ago. I cant paste images. . . . I could go on and on. . . . .but please go do some reading. . . . . Extensive Strata Or Pancake Layering: Evolutionists believe that pancaked layer strata all over the world are either river deposits, delta deposits or deposits made over millions of years. As u now know, Evolutionists are almost always WRONG, . . . The facts that there are no evidences of erosion between the layers. And the size of these layers, which could as big as a city could not have been formed by rivers or delta's. These layers also consist of marine fossils deposited by a ocean currents whose magnitude and effect could only have been caused by NOAH'S FLOOD. be right back. . . |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 10:14pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: I am a geologist and I know for SURE that you do not know what you are taking about here, when next you visit creationist websites and steal their work make sure that you give some acknowledgements. Stop plagiarizing other peoples work without acknowledging them. by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM so get your facts right before copying and pasting what you have absolute no knowledge of and stop lying for jesus all the time. creationists don't understand mountains basically, they find fossils in the tops of mountains and think that that is proof of noah's flood. now why they're in the mountain tops instead of on the mountain tops is something they rarely answer at all. The larger botanical fossil record contradicts flood geology over and over. For example, any Colorado Plateau tourist can view a petrified forest of conifers and tree ferns in the Chinle Formation, another within the Morrison Formation, and thousands of feet of rock in between these layers, including the desert Navajo Sandstone. There are no fossils of land plants at all in Cambrian rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or in Cambrian rocks anywhere on Earth for that matter. Thousands of feet of marine limestones overlie Grand Canyon Cambrian rocks. Above these, fossil fern leaves can be seen along the Kaibab trail in the Permian Hermit Shale . This layer is capped by a desert sandstone, then a limestone reef deposit. These all lie underneath the Chinle to the east, which is full of petrified wood. There are no flowering plant fossils (angiosperms) in any of this. For those you must go near to the top of the Grand Staircase. All this rock is interpreted by YE Creationists (and CESM in particular) as deposited in a single global flood! Why, then, are the major plants on Earth today never found in rocks below those with primitive tree ferns and cycads, for example? YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 10:20pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: when you come back make sure you acknowledge or give the source where you copied and pasted what you will post again, and pls try to make sure you use standard geological terms to support your claims, "polystrate fossils" is NOT even a standard geological term it is a term formulated by your forever lying christian apologist wh love lying for jesus all the time. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:20pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: and the "geologist" does NOTHING to refute noetic's claim, all he does is promptly rush to talkorigins website and paste a load of nonsense. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:22pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: and you copied this from wikipedia . . . why didnt you give an acknowledgement? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 10:23pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: why should i refute his baseless claims when he uses non standard geological terms as evidence for his mystical noah's flood that never happened? are you guys these desperate? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 10:27pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: at lest i am not like you that uses wikipedia when i want to prove non existent points to muslims. but turn around almost immediately and call it an anti god site. if it is an anti god site as you claim when do you use it to prove non existent points to the muslims? thou ridiculous and directionless hypocrite? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:32pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: you're not "refuting" because even you are clueless. I notice a trend, it always takes you guys close to 30mins to respond to a post and usually 90% of your response is a quote from another website, very little (except insults of course) in terms of genuine response from you. - you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com - you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA . . . NOT by christian apologetics as you FALSELY implied. - you claim to be a "geologist" yet cannot provide a genuine counter-argument to noetic's claims. Dude, we are not all stupid here. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:33pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
By the way take another 30 mins to go ferret thru talkorigins for a response. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 10:40pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: The entry from talkorigin perfectly refutes all his clueless arguments. - you accused him of quoting creationist websites . . . then went ahead to quote talkorigins.com when will this block-headed wannabe descendant of the mythical abraham learn to read. do you read with ur anus? i rightly accused him of not citing his reference and sources. i provided my own source which is there for every one to see. - you accused him of using non-standard geological terms . . . when in fact you dont know, you're simply parroting what you saw on wikipedia. the term "polystrate fossils" was coined in the 1970s by a Dutch Geologist with a PhD from Princeton University here in the USA . . . NOT by christian apologetics as you FALSELY implied. i didnt see that in wikipedia you are the one that did. - you claim to be a "geologist" yet cannot provide a genuine counter-argument to noetic's claims. are you blind? , how did i even expect you that sees and reasons with ur anus to see anything at all. Dude, we are not all stupid here. you have clearly demonstrated that you are very stupid because you clearly can not read. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:48pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: Isnt it absurd that you a supposed "geologist" has to go ferret through talkorigins to refute noetic? Why have you NO idea of polystrate fossils yourself? Besides the entry from talkorigins DID NOT refute noetic's claim, it was simply 6 lines of propaganda (with NO EXPLANATION), a copied drawing from wikipedia and the rest insults to creationists. The irony of the entire post was this - YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other. Isnt it funny that this same talkorigins folks NIT-PICK isolated (artificially reconstructed) bones as EVIDENCE of our own evolution? mazaje: Makes no difference . . . you were equally copying from websites . . . at least he tried to put his in context. You didnt even bother to read what you copied. mazaje: I'm sure you did, you're just lying because there is very little difference with the way both you and wikipedia phrased your statements. See below: Wikipedia - The word polystrate is not a standard geological term, and is found most often in creationist materials. (unfortunately there was no citation for this claim . . . as usual). Mazaje - by the way "polystrate fossils" is not even a STANDARD GEOLOGICAL TERM Judge for thyself. mazaje: As usual . . . this must be what you learnt in geology class. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by bindex(m): 10:49pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: Did you write this because you want to show how stupid and senseless you are or because you really believe what you have written? |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 10:56pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
bindex: thou fool . . . what's the problem with what i wrote? You accuse someone of quoting from other websites best not be quoting from A RIVAL WEBSITE in response. If you cant understand that then you have a warped mind. I find it funny that many of you foolish atheists usually have NOTHING of substance to contribute to threads besides chipping in insults from time to time. When someone has nothing to complain about but grammatical structure then you know something is amiss. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by mazaje(m): 11:04pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: i think i am very right when i say you are a block-headed slowpoke. Besides the entry from talkorigins DID NOT refute noetic's claim, it was simply 6 lines of propaganda (with NO EXPLANATION), a copied drawing from wikipedia and the rest insults to creationists. how will you see the refutations when you did not read it? Are "polystrate" fossils a problem for conventional geology? The irony of the entire post was this - YE Creationists nit-pick about upright tree trunks but make no effort to square with the major features of the record. This calls to mind the phrase “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel” by somebody or other. can you show me this quotes from talkorigin.org ? are you completely stupid? did you bother to understand where are what you were reading, or did you just type because you were too much in a haste to sound stupid? Makes no difference . . . you were equally copying from websites . . . at least he tried to put his in context. You didnt even bother to read what you copied. makes a lot of difference you were able to know my source because i sighted it. by the way i don't expect fools to understand simple english. I'm sure you did, you're just lying because there is very little difference with the way both you and wikipedia phrased your statements. See below: so because i use a word that is also found in wiki pedia that means i MUST have copied it from wikipedia? If i say that jesus died on the cross and the same comment is found in wikipedia that means i must have copied it from wikipedia, do you have a brain at all? As usual . . . this must be what you learnt in geology class. of course. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by noetic2: 11:06pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
mazaje: whats the meaning of all this?. . . . . . .u have made no point here. . . . .what are holes in my assertions? I started by asking if u knew what polystrate fossils are. . . . . because I knew u would turn this all on its head. |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by Nobody: 11:07pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
noetic2: you actually expected him to intelligently pick thru your arguments? All you're going to get is a long long tome from another website. Dont waste your time. they are so stupid they even copy and paste personal correspondence - The following is a more detailed post on polystrate fossil trees I presented previously in talk.origins: In article <1994May22.133828.562@alc-ohio.alc.com> malone@alc-ohio.alc.com (Bruce Malone) writes: |
Re: Questions For Noetic2 by bindex(m): 11:13pm On Jun 02, 2009 |
davidylan: The problem with what you wrote is that it showed that you were more interested in sounding stupid than making any sense. He didn't accuse your fellow believer in the fable of the global flood for copying from other sites, he simply told him to site his sources You accuse someone of quoting from other websites best not be quoting from A RIVAL WEBSITE in response. The fact that you always stupidly accuse others of quoting from other websites does not mean every body thinks foolishly like you, he only accused the guy of not stating his source, that is very different from accusing someone of quoting from another site. If you cant understand that then you have a warped mind. Bla, bla bla when next you make sense I will respond to you. |
The Sainthood Of Ndi-ichie / Using Bible As A Pillow During Sleep / Is Jesus The Son Of God And Promised Messiah? Biblical Proof That He Isn't.
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 99 |