Jump to content


Photo

If There Was Not A World Wide Flood, Explain This...


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2008 - 03:08 AM

The thing I often hear on the world wide flood is that there is not enough water on the earth to flood it to the extent claimed in the Bible. Problem is, this water has been found.

There has been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.

http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html

Where did the water come from? It has often been claimed by creationists that there was a canopy. Of course evolutionists laughed at that idea. But another idea has come up that has supporting evidence. When air bubbles in rock or amber in the lower layers. It always has higher oxygen. And if they are able to measure the pressure when it's trapped in amber. It's always twice the pressure we have now.

Higher barometric pressure translates into an atmosphere that can hold a lot more water. In fact when the barometric pressure exceeds a certain amount, rain clouds cannot form. Which would explain why there was no rain before the flood.

Now a meteor hit of a certain size and weight would cause some major atmosphere changes including barometric changes because of the impact. Sudden drop of the barometric pressure would cause water to be released from the atmosphere. Which brings up another problem that evolutionists will point out. That much condensation creates so much kenetic energy that it would broil the earth. They would be right, except for one thing they fell to ponder.

When the clouds and rain covered the sky, there was no sun shining through. Which basically means no heat. So first the kenetic energy would have to match the sun's energy, then exceed it by several times to broil the earth. To see if this were even possible, you would have to know the math for the sun's energy.

Averaged over an entire year and the entire Earth, the Sun deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth*. This is a very large amount of heat—1.7 x 1017 watts of power that the Sun sends to the Earth/atmosphere system. For comparison, a large electric power plant would produce 100 million watts of power, or 108 watts. It would take 1.7 billion such power plants to equal the energy coming to the Earth from the Sun—roughly one for every three people on the Earth!
http://earthobservat...v/Library/Oven/


So the kenetic energy produced was God's way of keeping the earth warm while the sun's rays were being blocked.

Then we have the idea that water could go down into the upper mantle and stay there. How did it get there without boiling off?

The water for the flood was 7 miles above the earth's crust (sea level), and 6 miles to the deepest ocean. Pressure applied to water increases the boiling point. According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet you descend into water equals 1 atmosphere. One atmosphere = 14.7 psi. So you take how many feet are in a mile. Divide that by 33. And you get how many atmospheres are in one mile. Times that times 13 miles and you get the least amount of pressure for the least amount of water required to cover the earth for the flood. After you have the amount of atmospheres in 13 miles of water, you times that times 14.7 and you get the actual pressure at the bottom of the ocean during the flood.

Some math:

According to scuba diving books, every 33 feet you descend in water, doubles the atmospheric pressure. There are  5,280 feet in a mile. So 5,280 times 12 = 63360 feet, which equals 1920 atmospheres (63360 divided by 33). 1920 atmospheres equals 28,216.2066837 psi. Now the average boiling point of water at 30.00inHg is 212.15 F. So if you times 30.00inHg times 1920 atmospheres equals 57600.00inHg. The boiling point of water at this atmospheric pressure is 106820.27 F. And also keep in mind that salt in the water will raise this even higher. But we will keep this simple. Wadsleyite, the mineral that holds the water that receded from the flood, stays around 1832 F or more. So 106820.27 F is well within range for the water from the flood to go into this mineral without boiling away.


From there you can figure a boiling point. But remember, water can only reach a certain boiling point and can go no higher regardless of pressure. You can research this on the web. The other point is that salt raises this boiling point (much like antifreeze raises the boiling point of water in a car radiator) along with any other mineral that was present. So if would be safe to add 10 - 30% higher boiling point when figuring this up. I did not figure up the math for this here because I think people should see this for themselves.

Side notes: Black smokers shoot water out at over 700 degrees F. This is due to the black smoker being deep in the water where great pressure exists (several atmospheres). And it has been known that some upper mantle minerals have held water at temps around 1000 degree C. This is due to extreme pressures, and the mineral's capability to increase the boiling point.

Other math if needed:
The Radius of the Earth = 3963 miles
The Radius of the earth with 5 miles of water = 3968 Miles.
The volume of the earth = 260711882973.3396 cubic miles
The volume of the earth with water = 261699925947.5533 cubic miles.
261699925947.5533 - 260711882973.3396 = 988042974.2136999965
So the volume of the flood water = 988,042,974.2136999965 cubic miles. But lets round it to 988,042,974 Cubic Miles.
If this water was put into a sphere, it would have a radius of 618 Miles.
http://geocities.com...athofflood.html

Then we have the Pangea:

The earth's crust has actually expanded twice.

First expansion:
In Genesis 1. the whole earth was covered with water. Then it had to recede into one place so that the land could appear. This means that the water went underground. And to go underground, the earth's crust had to expand. This made the Pangaea where all the continents were together.

Second expansion:
When the barometric pressure fell, and the atmosphere released the moisture that it held. It released the 30 oceans worth of water. When the flood water ran off the surface of the earth and into the upper mantle. The earth's crust had to expand again in order to receive it. This caused the continents to break apart and still look like they were together at one time.

The video in which I will leave a link to, shows how the earth would look if there was no water under the crust. This will shock you because it answers questions that even science has no answer for. Then it re-expands the earth to show how it looks today. the person who did this animation is not a creationist. And his views do not support it. But as he challenges his own peers, he actually proves the point of the bible with his animation.

http://www.continuit...net/clip00.html

Fresh water vs salt water Q and A:

1) Where did the fresh water come from after the flood?

Before the flood, there was no rain. What this means is that the hydro-logic cycle was not working as we know it today. So the only thing that existed was streams and lakes (if any existed) of salt water. This is because the hydro-logic cycle separates the water from the salt. So the only way for fresh water to be on the earth's surface is if a spring brought it up.

2) How did the salt water fish survive?

So after the flood, when the hydro-logic cycle was working because the barometric pressure had fallen enough for it to work. The salt water evaporated leaving behind the salt. So when it rained, it rained fresh water. The fresh water run off eventually filled our lakes and streams. And because it was done gradually, the salt water fish adapted to it and became fresh water fish.

#2 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2008 - 03:24 AM

Does oil underground take millions of years to form?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VdcHIeH0KsM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VdcHIeH0KsM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

How did the flood create oil?

The flood created pressures up to and beyond 1920 atmospheres which equals 57600.00inHg. And because some of the mantle had to come up with the waters from the deep. There was also enough heat to make oil quickly.

Is there current evidence of oil being made quickly?

Yes, a company called world changing technologies (link).

How about coal, does not it take millions of years also?

If so then no human artifacts should not be found with the coal because no humans existed yet, right?

Attached File  doorknobs_clump.jpg   33.46KB   124 downloads


Attached File  brunette_slider_coal.jpg   87.29KB   61 downloads

And the next pic is where a theory was tested on the coalification process on a piece of wood. It took less than a month for it to start.

Attached File  3_0004_TheYoungAgeoftheEarthEnglish_214k.jpg   22.07KB   48 downloads

1) So we have the water issue solved. Where it is today, and where it came from.
2) The kenetic energy problem solved.
3) The pangea idea fits nicely.
4) Oil being made quickly.
5) Coal being made quickly.
6) The meteor idea works.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2008 - 03:42 AM

Why did people live longer before the flood?

Higher barometric pressure serves as a natural type cure for all that can go wrong with you. It was not until recently that this is now being applied to several fields of scientific research as HBOT chambers are now replacing the normal treatments.

Treatment for strokes: http://miraclemountain.homestead.com/HBOTforSTROKE.html, http://drcranton.com...rokestudies.htm, http://www.cincinnat...gen_stroke.html, http://altmed.creigh...u/o2tx/hbot.htm, http://www.hbot.com/Hotfast.html

Treatment for brain injuries: http://miraclemounta.../HBOTforCP.html, http://www.hbot.com/4-98Neurology.html

Wound care: http://www.wound.com/hbo2.html

Here's a list from this site: http://www.florida-o...CFQqbOAodH1VS_A Many medical conditions respond well to Hyperbaric Therapy. These include: stroke, coma, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, Lyme disease, peripheral neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, osteoradionecrosis, crush injuries, decubitous ulcers, delayed wound healing, migraine headaches, brain edema, near drowning, hearing loss, radiation myelitis, Crohn"s disease, closed head injury, and healing after cosmetic surgery.

Even major sports teams now use HBOT chambers to heal their players much faster.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2008 - 03:53 AM

What else does all this explain?

Since it is shown that oil and coal can be made quickly. And that the conditions of the flood were just right to do these things. Then it also shows why the time-line that is needed for evolution to work has a very good chance that it did not pass as age dating seems to show. And it would explain how evidence like this exists:

Attached File  print_2.jpg   13.35KB   5 downloads

Human and dinosaur foot prints found in the same river bed. Notice the foot print is a fully formed human print, not ape like.

Attached File  dino2.jpg   19.14KB   52 downloads

A foot print from when the government made work programs during the depression where whole sections of a river bed were removed and placed into a museum. The human foot prints were not wanted by the museum so the workers were told they could remove them and keep them if they wanted.

Attached File  dino_skin_compare1.jpg   29.42KB   66 downloads

The ica stones were carved before this petrified dinosaur skin was found. Now all ica stones have been deemed as frauds by all of science. So the question that needs to be answered:

1) How did the ica stone carver know the pattern of the skin on the back of a dinosaur if all ica stones are frauds?
2) The person who carved the stones would have to have seen this in order to know what to carve,

And because the person who sold frauds was actually making imitations of the originals, does that make the originals frauds also?

Example: If a painting is repainted by another painter, does that make the original a fraud also? This is what the BBC did in their film about the ica stones. They found a person making the frauds, and they tested his frauds because they knew the out comes of the tests before testing (which is cheating by the way). Which means they were not out for truth, they were out to discredit the existing evidence which happened to include "all" ica stones.

Question: Do you actually think that by chance the ica stone carver would get the dino skin right the first time?

Attached File  footprints02.jpg   26.69KB   160 downloads

Then we have the first dino and man track finds in Glen Rose Texas. All kinds of claims have been made to discredit these finds. Not a one has panned out. But they did their damage to the evidence most did not want to believe. Well, what we want does not make a new reality of truth just because we say so. The evidence was there. But because it did not go along with the accepted theory. It was made to conform any way by it;s rejection and destruction.

etc...

Even though old earthers and evolutionists will not accept these things, the evidence is mounting.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 December 2008 - 12:04 PM

This also confirms a theory of mine about how God created. Where God added age to all things in the creation so that all things would make sense if they had happened naturally in our time-line instead of all of it being confusing by making it all date 6,000 years.

How would we know the stages of stars life and death if our age dating was the same?
How would we know actual decay rates if our age dating was all the same?

etc...

So God creating things with age already added would leave evidence for both types of creation (The aged creation, and the 6,000 year old creation). And if so we would find such evidence. And from what I have shown here, we have such evidence except the acceptance of one is preferred over the other.

The evidence in the Bible itself that God created this way is two fold.

1) He created Adam and Eve already with age. As babies, who would take care of them, when would they sin, or how could they multiply?

Attached File  Babies_31.jpg   10.4KB   75 downloads

Attached File  babytigers.jpg   13.19KB   81 downloads

Babies cannot take care of themselves, animal or human.

2) There are even verses that support this type of creation (creating with age).

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

How do you get generations in a day? You create with age already added.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Confirms two different time-lines between heaven and earth. Because you cannot compare time with a place that contains no time. So Heaven has time, age is a separate process that is added upon creation.

ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

How does one lay a foundation of old? You use aged material.

Example: If I were to lay a foundation of a new house and call the foundation old. What would I have to do to make it old? I would have to find old material to put down to build my house upon. Then I could say my house is new (young evidence), but also old (aged evidence). Because if you test the house it will date young. If you test the foundation, it will test old. Understand?

This is the way God created. Not to only show that He did create all this, but so our understanding of how our physical universe would be in-line with how it all works. And to not leave us scratching our heads saying: How does this star date the same age as that star, but yet be in a different stage of formation? Created with the ages required makes it all explainable and understandable. But leaving just enough young evidence to show that it did not happen this way. And that God has power over time and age. After all, if not, eternity could not exist.

Added: Can life change enough from every two from Noah's Ark?

When the gene pool of an animal contains 98% of what is needed to make an offspring that is different but within it's kind. And another animal has the 2% needed to complete the missing genes to do this. The result is a different species within a kind.

Posted Image

Dog breeders, in a short period of time, have bred enough different dogs within a kind that show this can be done. The above pic is just a sample of this. There are now over 350 different dogs within the dog kind. And this was done in less time than 4400 year ago (time since Noah's flood).

Breeding does not need evolution. Just two gene pools with the needed genes required to make a different species within a kind. And each time a new species is made through natural breeding, the different types, within that kind, increase.

Another example of quick changes is how the Aids virus works.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RO8MP3wMvqg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RO8MP3wMvqg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The aids virus changes so quickly, our immune system cannot keep up. And the meds used can never cure it. This is because at any given time, more than two strains can exist. So if you kill off one with a drug, the others survive and it continues. Fast changes like this proves that the different life forms we see today does not take millions of years to happen. 4,400 years is enough time.

Now, the millions of years of claimed evolution "process" is not observable, testable, or even provable. But, changes made due to breeding of different animals is. Which means that the template gene pools for every life form we currently see, walked off the Ark. No natural selection needed. Just existing gene pools and the ability to mate and make variations within a kind.

#6 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 December 2008 - 03:48 PM

Someone's been busy. Very good stuff.

I am a little concerned about the picture painted of the water all coming from the atmosphere (if I read correctly). This appears to conflict a little with the fountains of the deep making a significant contribution.

I like your approach to the heat issue. I've been thinking for a while about a similar approach to the heat from rapid decay. If the world started at absolute zero, it would be handy to incorporate a heat source for the interval prior to creation of the sun. Just a thought so far; haven't followed up on it.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 28 December 2008 - 02:33 AM

Then we have the first dino and man track finds in Glen Rose Texas. All kinds of claims have been made to discredit these finds. Not a one has panned out. But they did their damage to the evidence most did not want to believe. Well, what we want does not make a new reality of truth just because we say so. The evidence was there. But because it did not go along with the accepted theory. It was made to conform any way by it;s rejection and destruction.


Not only human fossils,footprints,and artifacts,but we can also confirm that the majority of other mammals lived as contempories with dinosaurs.

Ofcourse they lived in different ecological niches that the evolutionists call the geologic column,but we have found enough of them together to prove our point.

Dinosaur Extinction Didn't Cause The Rise Of Present-day Mammals, Claim Researchers

ScienceDaily (Mar. 29, 2007) — A new, complete 'tree of life' tracing the history of all 4,500 mammals on Earth shows that they did not diversify as a result of the death of the dinosaurs, says new research published in Nature.


The study was undertaken in the UK by scientists at Imperial College London and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL). It contradicts the previously accepted theory that the Mass Extinction Event (MEE) that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago prompted the rapid rise of the mammals we see on the earth today.

The multinational research team has been working for over a decade to compile the tree of life from existing fossil records and new molecular analyses. They show that many of the genetic 'ancestors' of the mammals we see around us today existed 85 million years ago, and survived the meteor impact that is thought to have killed the dinosaurs. However, throughout the Cretaceous epoch, when dinosaurs walked the earth, these mammal species were relatively few in number, and were prevented from diversifying and evolving in ecosystems dominated by dinosaurs.

http://www.scienceda...70328155632.htm



Enjoy.

#8 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 31 December 2008 - 09:33 AM

What else does all this explain?

Since it is shown that oil and coal can be made quickly. And that the conditions of the flood were just right to do these things. Then it also shows why the time-line that is needed for evolution to work has a very good chance that it did not pass as age dating seems to show. And it would explain how evidence like this exists:

Attached File  print_2.jpg   13.35KB   5 downloads

Human and dinosaur foot prints found in the same river bed. Notice the foot print is a fully formed human print, not ape like.

Attached File  dino2.jpg   19.14KB   52 downloads

A foot print from when the government made work programs during the depression where whole sections of a river bed were removed and placed into a museum. The human foot prints were not wanted by the museum so the workers were told they could remove them and keep them if they wanted.

Attached File  dino_skin_compare1.jpg   29.42KB   66 downloads

The ica stones were carved before this petrified dinosaur skin was found. Now all ica stones have been deemed as frauds by all of science. So the question that needs to be answered:

1) How did the ica stone carver know the pattern of the skin on the back of a dinosaur if all ica stones are frauds?
2) The person who carved the stones would have to have seen this in order to know what to carve,

And because the person who sold frauds was actually making imitations of the originals, does that make the originals frauds also?

Example: If a painting is repainted by another painter, does that make the original a fraud also? This is what the BBC did in their film about the ica stones. They found a person making the frauds, and they tested his frauds because they knew the out comes of the tests before testing (which is cheating by the way). Which means they were not out for truth, they were out to discredit the existing evidence which happened to include "all" ica stones.

Question: Do you actually think that by chance the ica stone carver would get the dino skin right the first time?

Attached File  footprints02.jpg   26.69KB   160 downloads

Then we have the first dino and man track finds in Glen Rose Texas. All kinds of claims have been made to discredit these finds. Not a one has panned out. But they did their damage to the evidence most did not want to believe. Well, what we want does not make a new reality of truth just because we say so. The evidence was there. But because it did not go along with the accepted theory. It was made to conform any way by it;s rejection and destruction.

etc...

Even though old earthers and evolutionists will not accept these things, the evidence is mounting.

View Post



Though oil and coal can be made quickly, it is not clear evidence that all oil and coal was made quickly.

Human and dinosaur footprints together do not verify a young earth theory of 6000 years as the only answer. It is just as plausible that dinosaurs as a species existed after the accepted time frame of their extinction and that they indeed did have their beginnings millions of years ago.

The pattern of the skin is different size squares that are not as regular and equal sized as the crosshatch in the engraving. Crosshatch engraving in stone has been used for thousands of years to denote texture though not as an exact indicator of the type of texture.

Your arguments, while interesting, are not compelling proof that the earth is only 6000 years old.

As a side note: Written in the beginning of the Egyptian book of the dead, written about 1250 I believe is this text.

"Oh world egg here me, I am Horus of millions of years"

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:55 PM

Though oil and coal can be made quickly, it is not clear evidence that all oil and coal was made quickly.


This clear evidence has been around for a few years now. If you old earth believers wanted to disprove this by actually doing it yourselves. There has been enough time to actually do it. Not doing it speaks volumes that you guys know what the out come will be.

Human and dinosaur footprints together do not verify a young earth theory of 6000 years as the only answer.  It is just as plausible that dinosaurs as a species existed after the accepted time frame of their extinction and that they indeed did have their beginnings millions of years ago.


Do you actually know what "age" dating is in a word sense? It dates an age of which you can never prove that the time required actually passed. And that age dating has already been proven that it can be wrong. Plus you also cannot prove that time and aging were two processes that always worked together and were never separate.

And the comment about the only answer. You do deem your answer as the only answer, correct? Also, that comment is new age. It's like claiming there are many paths to God or some other truth.

The pattern of the skin is different size squares that are not as regular and equal sized as the crosshatch in the engraving.  Crosshatch engraving in stone has been used for thousands of years to denote texture though not as an exact indicator of the type of texture.


I had to laugh when I read that. That's an easy straw man you build. How would the carver even know that was any pattern? Science has now made several animated movies about dinosaurs. Now if the stupid, ignorant, ica stone carver got it right, why could not the most intelligent resonable, smartest people on this planet not know this? You say what you say because you just cannot believe that anyone outside of your belief could actually have more knowledge.

Your arguments, while interesting, are not compelling proof that the earth is only 6000 years old.


Just as what you guys believe is not either.

1) Have you figured out where the first matter for the big bang came come?
2) Have you guys done a test reconfirming Miller's findings (abiogenesis), or would such a test actually disprove the original one because the cheats to do it would be exposed.


As a side note:  Written in the beginning of the Egyptian book of the dead, written about 1250 I believe is this text.

"Oh world egg here me, I am Horus of millions of years"

View Post


Also note that is a pagan religion reference to their pagan god (horus). And that time line for man to exist still messes up the evolution time line. Man was still bent over and grunting his way through life a million years ago.

Also, if you actually research who horus actually was. He was Nimrod's son who married his mother after his father died (ewww). And they started a cult that also known as the mother-wife husband-son cult. He was one of Noah's sons nephews. And when the son heard about what he had done, and that he started a cult that was sacrficing babies to their god. He got his sword an went and killed Horus.

His mother-wife escaped and continued that cult in hiding. To black mail it's members, they started confessionals where you confessed all your sins before anyone could join to her priests. They wrote down members name and their sins in a book to black mail them if they ever tried to leave.

Though some things have changed, the basics of that cult still exist. And only one religion still practices it. And it hides behind the Christian name, but worships the man and woman who started it. To conceal their real identity, they are called Mary and Jesus. But to make the connection to whom they really represent in thet cult. A halo is placed around their heads. Halo was never in the Bible.

The reason for the halos is because through time Horus and his Mother got exalted to god ship. The mother is considered the moon goddess, and Horus the sun god. Hence the reason for the halo because both pagan gods are consider gods of light.

So this religion takes away the power of Christ by making it's followers believe that the representation of Mary (actually Horus's mother and wife) is who has all the power in heaven. And has actually been exalted to queen of heaven. There is even evidence of this same religion putting Mary on the cross with Christ on opposite sides claiming that it was Mary who died for your sins and not Christ.

There are even several churches set up under the main church deniminational name that actually come out and say: Mary, Queen of Heaven Roman Catholic Chrurch. There is one named this about four miles from my house. They have this huge 12 foot statue of Mary that they worship inside the church.

You can do a google search and find pics and churchs about this worship: http://images.google...m=1&sa=N&tab=wi

I guess you did not know that I knew some church and pagan history when you made that statement about Horus.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2009 - 11:26 AM

Hi ikester,

Could you tell us what those artifacts in the coal are that look like doorknobs?




Thanks.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 January 2009 - 03:32 PM

It was where some divers found an old cargo ship wreck. The door knobs were a part of that wreck's cargo. The site I got the pic off of does not like my conclusion. Everytime I link to them as reference, they change the page. One time they even wrote that if you are coming from Yec Headquarters site, we do not support or condone his conclusions. So I quit linking to them.

I have seen another picture of the same door knobs. For display purposes, they took and polished up the door knobs then put some type of clear coating over the whole thing to protect the coal and the door knobs. The door knobs were quite expensive looking once polished. I think they said they were made out of marble.

This is an example of how when some one discovers evidence against evolution, and they believe evolution, they want nothing to do with it. Or the person who points it out.

It's basically because most evolutionists are atheists too. And to have to ponder that what they have found might destroy not only their belief in evolution, but that they might have to ponder God as well. Being against God and all theists makes them either deny the evidence, hide the evidence, or just totally separate themselves from the evidence. Which shows it's not real truth they are after. It's justication for their lifestyle and made up reality.

Edited by ikester7579, 02 January 2009 - 05:13 PM.


#12 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2009 - 08:58 PM

WOW!!! I guess if it looks like a doorknob then thats what it is.Remember that the next time someone shows you a hominid that looks like an ape.

I understand the source trying to seperate themselves from your interpretations of it.Usualy an evolutionists will contact any source cited by a creationists and try to cause trouble,it can hardly be the sources fault for not wanting to be involved in any controversy.Just look at Glen Kuban,if he can't force the source to retract any claim made then he will just lie about it.

I remember reading an article about a guy dropping off a fossil to be examined by the science department at the Smithsonian.They started out as freinds and before it was over the Smithsoian was lying to a congressman.

If I can find it again I'll post it in seperate thread.



Thanks.

#13 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 January 2009 - 05:51 AM

Here is some more evidence:

Giant oysters:

Attached File  Part_2b_Cave_Men.jpgSlide157.JPG   73.94KB   91 downloads
Attached File  Part_2b_Cave_Men.jpgSlide158.JPG   88.84KB   67 downloads

Sea life remains found on the worlds tallest mountain:
Attached File  Part_2b_Cave_Men.jpgSlide159.JPG   56.45KB   79 downloads

#14 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 January 2009 - 12:35 AM

Those are some big clams!It's quite puzzling trying to figure out how the atmosphere started out with zero oxygen,but the fossil record starts out with huge ancestors of todays flora and fauna.It does'nt just occur down in the bottom of the fossil record with huge insects like 2-foot Dragonflies,but all the way up.Imagine going on a fishing trip to the local stream and seeing 8-foot Beavers and 60-foot cattails,sound like a sci-fi movie?

http://www.s8int.com/mega1.html

Look at some of the Mega-Fauna at the link above,it's incredible.




Enjoy.

#15 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:24 PM

Leonardo Di Vinci found marine growth layers on top of Mt. Everest.By knowing the clams live for ~25 years he was able to figure out that there was ~2500 years of marine growth up there.

The question is,if the earth is only 6,000-7,000 years old and there was a global flood around 4,300 years ago,then why is it that we find ~2,500 years of marine growth layers and not millions of years of growth layers?

We predict that Mt. Everest was under the ocean for ~2,500 before the flood and rose up afterwards.Why do the numbers match so perfectly?





Thanks.

#16 numbers

numbers

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 37
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Houston

Posted 16 January 2009 - 02:40 AM

Leonardo Di Vinci found marine growth layers on top of Mt. Everest.By knowing the clams live for ~25 years he was able to figure out that there was ~2500 years of marine growth up there.

The question is,if the earth is only 6,000-7,000 years old and there was a global flood around 4,300 years ago,then why is it that we find ~2,500 years of marine growth layers and not millions of years of growth layers?

We predict that Mt. Everest was under the ocean for ~2,500 before the flood and rose up afterwards.Why do the numbers match so perfectly?
Thanks.

View Post


Please tell me you aren't seriously claiming that leonardo da vinci, the italian renaissance painter, climbed mt. everest, several thousand miles from italy. That's just absurd for a variety of obvious reasons.

Leonardo did write about fossils found in the hills of italy, but he rejected that they were there due to a global flood.

"if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time"


Since you apparently got nepal confused with italy, I have to question whether the rest of your claim about the leonardo making a 2,500 year calculation is accurate and would appreciate you providing your source for such a claim.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 January 2009 - 03:21 AM

I think he was making some sort of a joke about the D Vinci code.

#18 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 January 2009 - 09:09 AM

Please tell me you aren't seriously claiming that leonardo da vinci, the italian renaissance painter, climbed mt. everest, several thousand miles from italy.  That's just absurd for a variety of obvious reasons.

Leonardo did write about fossils found in the hills of italy, but he rejected that they were there due to a global flood.

"if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time"


Since you apparently got nepal confused with italy, I have to question whether the rest of your claim about the leonardo making a 2,500 year calculation is accurate and would appreciate you providing your source for such a claim.

View Post


An Evo told me about it.He wanted to know why there was 2,500 years of marine growth layers on top of the mountain if the global flood only lasted for 1 year.I told him it was because the mountain was under the ocean for 2,500 years,if he beleives it has been under the ocean for millions of years then where are the millions of layers?

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 18 January 2009 - 06:12 PM

An Evo told me about it.He wanted to know why there was 2,500 years of marine growth layers on top of the mountain if the global flood only lasted for 1 year.I told him it was because the mountain was under the ocean for 2,500 years,if he beleives it has been under the ocean for millions of years then where are the millions of layers?

View Post


Would not that have resulted in layers of marine growth on top of the mountain followed by a layer that would have had the signature of a world wide flood?

I'm thinking that it would be something like the layer of iridium found at the K/T boundary layer all over Earth.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 18 January 2009 - 08:18 PM

Would not that have resulted in layers of marine growth on top of the mountain followed by a layer that would have had the signature of a world wide flood?

I'm thinking that it would be something like the layer of iridium found at the K/T boundary layer all over Earth.

View Post


K/T boundary is not found all over the earth. Only in places where valcanoes once existed. That too is a fact. Valcanoes contain large amounts of iridium. When waters from the deep came up from the ground, valconoes in the ground would have inevitebly errupted too. Placing large amounts of iridium everywhere. Why even bring up the non existant K/T boundary??? We haven't even found the Meteor yet.

Well offcourse you can blame us for not finding Noah's ark, but the giant Meteor that supposedly killed off all the dinosaurs still hasn't been found either. This also brings to question why the United States government keeps taking pictures of Mt. Ararat. It's no question that their looking for the ark... probably already found it, but no one will actually be allowed to set foot on the site itself. Why??? Again, because the Turkish really are hiding something, If they weren't they'd let scientist go up there and excavate it, instead of acting supsicious, and skiddish by using every method possible at guarding excavation from the site.

The Turkish government has sadly labled a mound of dirt and ore as a possible candidate for Noah's ark. Unfortunately the entire site is not very convincing to say the least. I don't believe for a second that the Turkish government actually believes this is the actual site for the ark. This is actually a deterrent for actual useful expeditions from happening, as the Turkish WILL NOT let anyone make expeditions on to Mt. Ararat itself, and the U.S. government knows this.

The Turkish are hiding the ark, and everyone has been knowing this ever since they decided to not let anyone on to that pesky mountain for nearly over a century of whinning and complaining.

I'm not sure theres 2500 years of marine growth on top of the mountain (not speaking of ararat) , as I haven't been there, but if it truly is just 2500 hundred years of growth, it certainly can't be that much growth because if it was, evolutionist would have labled it as millions of years old.

Leonardo actually disproved himself, no a massive flood will not scatter, as the majority of fossil sites show, MASSIVE amounts of water and sediment can freeze an entire ecosystem in place, in a moment of time. Like the majority of fossils being buried alive show. Yes, it's quite obvious. Like why the entire area of Pontatoc and Tupelo Mississippi has a huge layer of marine life with the MAJORITY of fossils being buried alive+complete. Yes I've been there... I live extremely close to the site. Hmm, miles of one massive buried ecosystem... sounds Floodish to me, even the sediments scream this by observation.

Besides, If the mountains did have marine life on them, then evolutionist would in turn have to believe that the mountains rose up. Why? Because without the mountains rising the water level would have to be alot higher than it is now.

Also large amounts of water and sediment are needed to create the pressure needed to create fossils. Fossils are the greatest evidence for a Flood, unless you want to believe that every dinosuar that was ever fossilized died by an extremely large local Flood that killed at least 15,000 60 foot long Saurapod dinosaurs over and over again. All over the WORLD.

If a Global Flood did not happen, then evolutionist would have to explain why millions of dinosaurs keep inevitably dying at the same time all over the entire planet, this goes for fossil mammals too. I'm talking ENTIRE ECOSYSTEMS, buried at once, by extremely large local Floods.

We find a complete world buried beneath our feet. Every dinosaur did not just haphazardly die by a river.... as most Textbooks so neatly show. Oh wait, it was thousands of giant local Floods randomly appearing all over the ENTIRE PLANET.... offcourse we have evidence of it, but not a GLOBAL FLOOD.

Global Fossilization and extremely large global floods couldn't possibly mean GLOBAL FLOOD now could it. Yes, it most very well can, and it does very well at this I might add.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users