• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do creationists have anything new?

F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
SkepticThinker said:
I was telling you to look up how mountains are formed because it would explain why fossils are sometimes found on mountaintops - the bottom of the sea can buckle, fold and rise up to become the top of a mountain, taking the fossils with it.

And I see that someone has been kind enough to explain it to you. :)
Click to expand...


Look, what you given exactly explains how the clam shell's and certain fish are found out in the desert mountain's. The ocean sea at one time covered those desert mountain's., Until the ocean seas started to recede exposing the desert mountain's tops, therefore leaving the clam shell's and the fish to become fossilized in the rocks of the mountains.

Therefore at one time the ocean seas did in fact covered the desert mountain's tops.

Now in the book of Genesis 1:2,9,10, We find that water did Indeed cover the earth at one time. This is not the flood of Noah's either, because Noah was not born Yet and before Adam and Eve.

So what you given supports what is written in the book of Genesis chapter 1
Verse's 2, 9, 10. That the ocean seas indeed covered the top of mountains at one time.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Faithofchristian said:
Look, what you given exactly explains how the clam shell's and certain fish are found out in the desert mountain's. The ocean sea at one time covered those desert mountain's., Until the ocean seas started to recede exposing the desert mountain's tops, therefore leaving the clam shell's and the fish to become fossilized in the rocks of the mountains.

Therefore at one time the ocean seas did in fact covered the desert mountain's tops.

Now in the book of Genesis 1:2,9,10, We find that water did Indeed cover the earth at one time. This is not the flood of Noah's either, because Noah was not born Yet and before Adam and Eve.

So what you given supports what is written in the book of Genesis chapter 1
Verse's 2, 9, 10. That the ocean seas indeed covered the top of mountains at one time.
Click to expand...

No, that is NOT what is being said.

At one point the layers that became the mountains was at the bottom of a sea. At that point in time, those layers were NOT in a mountain! The mountain formed *after* those layers.

Again, this is *basic* geology.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Polymath257 said:
No, that is NOT what is being said.

At one point the layers that became the mountains was at the bottom of a sea. At that point in time, those layers were NOT in a mountain! The mountain formed *after* those layers.

Again, this is *basic* geology.
Click to expand...
This ^^^


Thank you. :)
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Faithofchristian said:
Look, what you given exactly explains how the clam shell's and certain fish are found out in the desert mountain's. The ocean sea at one time covered those desert mountain's., Until the ocean seas started to recede exposing the desert mountain's tops, therefore leaving the clam shell's and the fish to become fossilized in the rocks of the mountains.

Therefore at one time the ocean seas did in fact covered the desert mountain's tops.

Now in the book of Genesis 1:2,9,10, We find that water did Indeed cover the earth at one time. This is not the flood of Noah's either, because Noah was not born Yet and before Adam and Eve.

So what you given supports what is written in the book of Genesis chapter 1
Verse's 2, 9, 10. That the ocean seas indeed covered the top of mountains at one time.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're talking about, given that I didn't say anything like this, nor does your description match what we know about reality.

See Polymath's response and seriously, just Google "how mountains are formed."
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
No, that is NOT what is being said.

At one point the layers that became the mountains was at the bottom of a sea. At that point in time, those layers were NOT in a mountain! The mountain formed *after* those layers.

Again, this is *basic* geology.
Click to expand...

It all still comes down to, the water receded which exposed the top of the mountains or the mountains push their way up out of the water.either way it still explains how those clam shell's and fish got there.and that water did indeed cover the earth at one time.

If the mountains were formed at the bottom of the ocean seas, then gradually push their way up out of water to form mountains, the mountains still rise up out of the water, no matter how you cut it the mountains started at the bottom of the ocean floor then started to push upwards, then came up out the water to form mountains.
So it still proves that at one time water did indeed covered the whole earth at one time Millions to Billions of years ago.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Faithofchristian said:
It all still comes down to, the water receded which exposed the top of the mountains or the mountains push their way up out of the water.either way it still explains how those clam shell's and fish got there.and that water did indeed cover the earth at one time.

If the mountains were formed at the bottom of the ocean seas, then gradually push their way up out of water to form mountains, the mountains still rise up out of the water, no matter how you cut it the mountains started at the bottom of the ocean floor then started to push upwards, then came up out the water to form mountains.
So it still proves that at one time water did indeed covered the whole earth at one time Millions to Billions of years ago.
Click to expand...

No, it does not show that. It shows that the layers in some mountains were previously at the bottom of the sea.

But the centers of the continents were NOT below water. The mountains typically form at the *edges* of the continents and are pushed up as the continents collide. Some of the sea floor is then raised into the mountains that are formed. But there was *other* dry land. You seem to ignore this simple fact.

/E: Also, different mountain ranges were formed at wildly different times. They didn't all rise up together.
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
No, it does not show that. It shows that the layers in some mountains were previously at the bottom of the sea.

But the centers of the continents were NOT below water. The mountains typically form at the *edges* of the continents and are pushed up as the continents collide. Some of the sea floor is then raised into the mountains that are formed. But there was *other* dry land. You seem to ignore this simple fact.
Click to expand...

So by all means, who was there all those Millions to Billions of years ago to photograph how these mountains formed,

All you and those who try to explain as to how mountains formed Millions to Billions of years ago, is nothing more than their assumptions and speculations, because no one was their to actually see how the mountains actually did form. So all they have is their assumption speculations. Which mounts to nothing, unless they have clear evidence to show exactly how mountains did indeed form all those Millions to Billions of years ago.

Which all they have is guess work, that the layers at the bottom of Sea floor started to buckle and started to push upwards. This is their assumption and speculation and nothing more.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Faithofchristian said:
So by all means, who was there all those Millions to Billions of years ago to photograph how these mountains formed,

All you and those who try to explain as to how mountains formed Millions to Billions of years ago, is nothing more than their assumptions and speculations, because no one was their to actually see how the mountains actually did form. So all they have is their assumption speculations. Which mounts to nothing, unless they have clear evidence to show exactly how mountains did indeed form all those Millions to Billions of years ago.

Which all they have is guess work, that the layers at the bottom of Sea floor started to buckle and started to push upwards. This is their assumption and speculation and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yes, we *do* have clear evidence. We see mountains increasing in height *today* at measurable rates. We can look at the fossils in different mountains and use them to know when those layers were under water (or on dry land). We can see *today* the erosion of some mountain ranges versus the newness of others.

Once again, this is *basic* geology. It is no longer speculation, but measured, tested, and useful.

But you want to reject it for your religious ideas. Unfortunately, this type of rejection is very common.
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Faithofchristian said:
So by all means, who was there all those Millions to Billions of years ago to photograph how these mountains formed,

All you and those who try to explain as to how mountains formed Millions to Billions of years ago, is nothing more than their assumptions and speculations, because no one was their to actually see how the mountains actually did form. So all they have is their assumption speculations. Which mounts to nothing, unless they have clear evidence to show exactly how mountains did indeed form all those Millions to Billions of years ago.

Which all they have is guess work, that the layers at the bottom of Sea floor started to buckle and started to push upwards. This is their assumption and speculation and nothing more.
Click to expand...
Till now you were pointing to geological evidence that you thought proved that all of earth was under water. Now that it is being explained to you that the evidence actually does not show any such thing, all that geological evidence is being dubbed "speculation and guesswork"?? Talk about hypocrisy....
 
F

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
metis said:
And were you there when God supposedly did it? Sorta cuts both ways, don't it.
Click to expand...

If you had any clue,
metis said:
And were you there when God supposedly did it? Sorta cuts both ways, don't it.
Click to expand...

Oh not really, had you any idea or clue about the first earth age, unto which you don't. Now do I care to elaborate on it, No and why should I, In the heading above it does say, Do Creationists have anything New?
Why of course there are alot of things New, but it takes a person with an intellect open mind to have the wisdom of knowledge to comprehend those things that be of God. But all you have is your assumptions and speculations to guide you.so go with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top