gnostic
The Lost One
I don't think he will ever respond to your request.
He will try to ignore you, hoping that in time you will forget all about it.
-
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!
Evidence for an ancient earth
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
He will try to ignore you, hoping that in time you will forget all about it.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
And that'll make at least the third time he's done that.
Such is the nature of creationism.....
gnostic
The Lost One
Here, I will ask on your behalf, and see if he will still ignore the request.
To BilliardsBall:
Where is this link to "reports online" that Jose have been repeatedly asking for?
Which secular scientists have poked holes in evolution? Please document this.
I would say that a geologic section of ROCK layers might not be overturned by a lot of water.
Actually does not make sense. It is not the rock layers over turned in the flood that is the problem.
The elephant in the room is the claim of a ~10,000 year old earth, and evidence of a world flood.
Again . . .
Yes, the flood is considered a miracle act, but there is no evidence that any regional nor world flood too place of the magnitude the Bible describes.
Physics restricts any different interpretation of the geologic evidence. There are a number of places in the world where there is a complete geologic sedimentary record without interruption or discontinuity that could be interpreted as a major flood on the Biblical scale.
The energy creating massive flood debris, and the water required for a flood of this magnitude just is not there.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
A small flood creates debris, and leaves trace evidences in the soils and on trees that survive such flood (eg measure of time through the ages of the tree rings). Ice core samples are another example of tracing evidences for the changes in the environment.
These evidences are not only seen with flood water in that particular year. Droughts, fires, the presence of different pollens, type amount of carbon in the airs, etc; they can all show up in the soil and trees. Each one of these are way to determine what happen in that site or region.
So with bigger and more destructive floods, they should leave even more evidences in the soils, or that those trees that survived and were affected by the flood.
And the Flood of the magnitude described in Genesis, "should" leave even more evidences, around the world, consistent with a very specific point in time.
What creationists cannot understand or refused to understand that there are no such evidences, to show that such a Flood (Noah's Flood) occur.
They invent all such silly and unsubstantiated interpretations and apologetic excuses to both Genesis and science, to make it fit.
Some creationists have claimed that such evidences would be destroyed, leaving no traces of their existence. How convenient is that?
Such a flood could not leave "no evidences". If there are truly no evidences, then it would suggest that such a flood (as described in Genesis) never occur at all.
And then, there are those who would claim the Flood are recorded and memorised in other primitive deluge myths. But such evidences only showed that floods occurred in those regions, but none of them provide any timeline that can match with the Genesis Flood, so those other flood myths would hardly endorse Genesis version to be fact.
And it is not possible for that amount of water to appear and disappear, like magic or miracle.
And if the water did cover the highest mountains on earth, the depth of such water, the massive water pressures would kill off and destroy every single land plants and trees. Genesis say that the water reached its greatest height in 150 days, so in almost half a year.
Olive trees cannot survive any depth of water for very long, because olive trees are mostly found in much more drier climates, like lands around the Mediterranean. Olive trees don't require that much too water to grow healthy; too much water would make the tree mouldy, therefore susceptible to rots and diseases. And it is not just flood that would ruin olives - heavy rains can ruin crops as well.
The notion that a dove brought back a leaf from olive tree, is nothing more than make believe, because no olive trees could survive so long underwater.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
No, you may not suggest this--because I find paradoxes related to BB and etc. on non-Creationist sites . . . you trivialized, for example, the Faint Young Sun paradox. Use "Google" - it's a great "science" tool!
No, you may not suggest this--because I find paradoxes related to BB and etc. on non-Creationist sites . . . you trivialized, for example, the Faint Young Sun paradox. Use "Google" - it's a great "science" tool!
without a basic understanding of science "Google" is a trash in and trash out tool, you can find anything the fool wants on "Google."
The "tools of science" are the objective methods of Methodological Naturalism. To access the "tool box" you need the basic science education.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are fishing (flood pun intended). There are multiple issues with classic geology/modern geology. For example, this book chapter is compelling IMHO: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - GrandCanyon.html
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You are making general, sweeping statements above, like "nothing of significance", as if you've read all the materials in the world on the subject from YECs. If you HAVE read all the materials, you've read more than I, and must be a secret YEC in a state of denial.
Statements like "the energy creating massive flood debris, and the water required for a flood of this magnitude just is not there," are nonsensical, almost incomprehensible. If a massive flood exists today (tsunami, etc.) it leaves behind massive debris. The massive debris (e.g. a low hill or mountain range is covering what?) the Flood-cleared path beneath!
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You must be joking! The whole idea behind something like punctuated equilibrium is "There's NO way that slow, accrued changes made all this life diversity". Some of the top names in the field for the last half-century have seriously promoted space seed ideas . . . and yet people like you say Christians are off!
I answered the rest of the straw man on another post--the Flood itself would demolish and cover (with sediments a mile high) much of the geologic evidence you "seek". Seek indeed! You shall find indeed!
No, you may not suggest this--because I find paradoxes related to BB and etc. on non-Creationist sites . . . you trivialized, for example, the Faint Young Sun paradox. Use "Google" - it's a great "science" tool!
I can make a case for a flat earth by using google.
What about our own brains?
Ciao
- viole
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Is there evidence that Mars may have had partial or total covering by water? What evidence would that be? How would that line of reasoning apply to Earth geology in this case?
If a MASSIVE Flood left MASSIVE sediment in its wake (like small hills or mountains) would you expect geologists to remove the mountain in their pursuit of mountain-causing phenomena or are they looking at the outside of the phenomena?
Do you use Nada Nyet Zero when you are being open-minded or closed-minded?
Not joking, and the above is a bizzaro lack of misunderstanding of the simple basics of the science of evolution.
Please site 'top names' in the bold assertion, because it is not true. The only thing advocated by scientists is that some of the amino acids of life are found in meteors, and this is a simple fact, and nothing controversial.
You have at present offered nothing of substance in previous posts.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
So, what you are saying is that geologists really can't tell where water levels may have reached their apex. Maybe try selling that to the geologists themselves.
Erosion and drilling help geologists to determine what happened and when, and flooding leaves some tell-tale signs.
If throwing insults like this is taught by your church as somehow be morally acceptable, let me suggest looking for another church.
alluvial fans, braided and meandering streams, and beach shoreline deposits and features have been observed on Mars demonstrating rivers, lakes and seas on Mars that are no longer present.
Easy, the sedimentary rocks throught the rock strata of the world show meandering rivers, alluvial fans, lake, sea and ocean deposits just as we see forming in the world today with no evidence of a massive regional nor world flood.
Geologists use cores taken by drill rigs to show what id under the mountains hills and everywhere on the earth. It was actually part of my job as a geologist when I was working as a drill rig supervisor,
You have failed to respond to the problem of vast salt, gypsum and bauxite deposits hundreds of feet thick in arid regions of the world still forming in salline seas and deserts. Death Valley, Salt Lake Utah, and the Dead Sea region in Israel are classic examples.These deposits can only form under arid and desert conditions over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. There are also many vast ancient deposits under the earth all over the world taht also formed under ancient arid conditions and saline seas.
Last edited:
I see only pictures. Can the chapter be read? If not please summarize for me the main argument and evidence for the argument so that I can properly rebut them.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Are you willing to walk through the claims in that chapter and see how they match up to reality?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Last edited:
Again . . .
Which secular scientists have poked holes in evolution? Please document this.
You repeatedly make outrageous unsupported assertions and refuse to back them up.
gnostic
The Lost One
I hoped you are not indicating the Genesis Flood did the Grand Canyon, less than 4500 years old?