Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[jonathan180iq]

Marine fossils on mountain tops.

That's not evidence of a global flood. Especially if you know how mountains are formed. And let's not forget that you had to invoke magic to get through that "explanation" as well.

Orogeny - Wikipedia
Stratum - Wikipedia

I live on the dying remnants of the Grenville Orogeny. It's a subject I know a bit about, Kemosloby.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Fossils are generally formed in catastrophes, otherwise scavengers would have devoured them and the rest rotted away. So slow mountain creation works against the likelihood of fossils.

You know that mountains are formed when the land buckles and rises. So pieces of land that used to be lower, can be uplifted to form the upper portion of a mountain top. Meaning that a fossil can originate say, below sea level at one point and then be uplifted by plate movements and end up residing on a mountaintop. No magic required.


If your global flood story is true, we should expect to find that those fossils on the mountaintops should have been washed/eroded away and randomly scattered all over the valleys by the deluge of flood water that would have supposedly rained down.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God only knows, was it fast or was it slow. But geology doesn't move like presto, only God moves like presto.

Except that you can't actually demonstrate god moving "like presto."

 

[Kemosloby]

You know that mountains are formed when the land buckles and rises. So pieces of land that used to be lower, can be uplifted to form the upper portion of a mountain top. Meaning that a fossil can originate say, below sea level at one point and then be uplifted by plate movements and end up residing on a mountaintop. No magic required.


If your global flood story is true, we should expect to find that those fossils on the mountaintops should have been washed/eroded away and randomly scattered all over the valleys by the deluge of flood water that would have supposedly rained down.

No because as I said God lowered the mountains during the flood and raised them up again afterwards, as many as he decided to. So that means the mountains, formed during a catastrophic event, loaded with mud and corpses raised up out of the water and solidified into rock and fossils.

 

[Altfish]

God only knows, was it fast or was it slow. But geology doesn't move like presto, only God moves like presto.

I bow to your better knowledge.

 

[KBC1963]

According to the Bible, god killed everyone and everything except Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark (and, presumably aquatic life by default given the modus operandi), but according to that source, god failed to do that.

Really...
Did you know that actually reading a reference is required to make an assertion about what it says?

"Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up."
Read more at Does science prove Noah’s flood?

So by default if the earth was as he describes it then the flood would have covered all the land so how do you rationalize that everything living on the land would not have died?
Presuming that oceanic life would have died from a flood is a huge presumption. This would also be a case of you not having read the book you are attempting to comment on. I am not even a religious based person but I will at least read something before commenting on it.....

Gen 6-7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
wow not one mention of sea creatures in the reference material huh go figure.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you know that actually reading a reference is required to make an assertion about what it says?

Reading that reference, and a link that source goes to, is how I know they are saying god failed to kill everyone like he said he was going to do.
He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.
(from the 230 flood legends link).
A gigantic flood may be the most common of all legends. Almost every ancient culture had legends telling of a traumatic flood in which only a few humans survived in a large boat.a The many common elements in more than 230 flood legends, suggest a common historical event that left a vivid impression on survivors of that catastrophe. This cannot be said for other types of catastrophes, such as earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, disease, famines, or drought.
Notice, he says "survivors of that catastrophe." He didn't name Noah's family, and having a Chinese character can only be explained if there was at least one Chinese survivor - and there is also the addition of the inherent problem in referencing a modern Hanzi character that hasn't been around for very long and trying to say it's been around for thousands of years. In addition the 'square' part of it does mean mouth or opening, but really not "people," as that is a different character.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No because as I said God lowered the mountains during the flood and raised them up again afterwards, as many as he decided to. So that means the mountains, formed during a catastrophic event, loaded with mud and corpses raised up out of the water and solidified into rock and fossils.

Except that you have yet to demonstrate that such a magic trick ever occurred.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how marine fossils show up on the tops of mountains that doesn't require any magic tricks. Why would we push that aside in favour of your indemonstrable god claim?


The thread title is "Evidence for and against young earth creationism."

 

[Kemosloby]

Except that you have yet to demonstrate that such a magic trick ever occurred.

There's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how marine fossils show up on the tops of mountains that doesn't require any magic tricks. Why would we push that aside in favour of your indemonstrable god claim?

I haven't pushed either aside or the possibility that there is a better explanation than either of us have made.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I haven't pushed either aside or the possibility that there is a better explanation than either of us have made.

Gee, I don't know. You're going to the extreme lengths of invoking magic to make your explanation work. It seems you have chosen that as your explanation.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up

There's no reason to assume tectonics worked differently 5,000 years ago, which doesn't operate by how much ocean there is. The mountains of Ararat where the Ark supposedly set down are too high to be covered, let alone higher mountain ranges.

Presuming that oceanic life would have died from a flood is a huge presumption

No it isn't, it's physics and biology. A global flood sufficient to cover all mountains would have changed the temperature, current, ph, salinity and pressure of climate zones for sea animals. Killing pretty much all of them. I could give ten or fifteen reasons coral should be extinct. The only way out is to assume magic saved them, by definition ascientific reasoning. Which is why a global flood story isn't scientific.

 

[Kemosloby]

Gee, I don't know. You're going to the extreme lengths of invoking magic to make your explanation work. It seems you have chosen that as your explanation.

Well as someone who believes in God and that is one credible explanation. I'm leaning towards the majority of fossils were created at one time. since they all have that prehistoric look to them. In some sort of a global catastrophe. Maybe it did happen in the days of Noah, then over 4,000 years creatures, through evolutionary processes and adapting to new environments after the flood, began to look different than they did then.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well as someone who believes in God and that is one credible explanation. I'm leaning towards the majority of fossils were created at one time. since they all have that prehistoric look to them. In some sort of a global catastrophe. Maybe it did happen in the days of Noah, then over 4,000 years creatures, through evolutionary processes and adapting to new environments after the flood, began to look different than they did then.

There is no evidence for this. "All the fossils look old" is not evidence.

Evolution would have had to have worked at warp speed in order to create the diversity of life we now have on this planet, in only four thousand years. Why do you think the earth is only 4000 years old??

 

[Kemosloby]

There is no evidence for this. "All the fossils look old" is not evidence.

Evolution would have had to have worked at warp speed in order to create the diversity of life we now have on this planet, in only four thousand years. Why do you think the earth is only 4000 years old??

Species can change really fast. Look at a labradoodle, one hard up Labrador and you have labradoodles.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Species can change really fast. Look at a labradoodle, one hard up Labrador and you have labradoodles.

That's because of artificial selection by humans.

 

[Kemosloby]

That's because of artificial selection by humans.

Well if the world was turned upside down, species thrown every which way in a flood, that would be a catalyst for extreme evolutionary changes

 

[Reggie Miller]

The only evidence for young earth creationism

Spoiler: Take a peek

The only evidence against young earth creationism

Spoiler: Take a peek

.​

Hmm... So much for the limited thinker.

Here is a whole wealth of information www.icr.org

 

[KBC1963]

There's no reason to assume tectonics worked differently 5,000 years ago, which doesn't operate by how much ocean there is. The mountains of Ararat where the Ark supposedly set down are too high to be covered, let alone higher mountain ranges..

Apparently actually reading the reference material isn't your strong suit either. Right near the beginning of the article it says;

According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower.
Read more at Does science prove Noah’s flood?

Do you comprehend how that counters your narrow pov for high mountain ranges.

No it isn't, it's physics and biology. A global flood sufficient to cover all mountains would have changed the temperature, current, ph, salinity and pressure of climate zones for sea animals. Killing pretty much all of them. I could give ten or fifteen reasons coral should be extinct. The only way out is to assume magic saved them, by definition ascientific reasoning. Which is why a global flood story isn't scientific.

Can you show me the physics and biology to back your opinion?
Isn't it also an evolutionists view that life can adapt to changes? if they can posit that the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs could still be rationalized to allow for life to continue then a simple addition of water should be a snap right? How much temperature change, current, ph, salinity and pressure of climate zones for sea animals have been affected by that?

Dinosaur-Killing Comet Didn't Wipe Out Freshwater Species
....Now new research, detailed online July 11 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences, suggests freshwater life survived extinction because they were better adapted to withstand rapid changes in their surroundings, which helped them outlast the crises in the wake of the catastrophe....
...
Gimme shelter
Water would have helped shelter life in rivers and lakes, as well as the seas and oceans, from the initial blast of heat from the cosmic impact. However, the giant extraterrestrial collision set fire to Earth's surface, darkening the sky with dust and ash that cooled the planet. The resulting "impact winter" and its lack of sunlight would have crippled both freshwater and marine food chains by killing off microscopic photosynthetic organisms known as phytoplankton that are at the base of the marine and freshwater food chains.

Intriguingly, while marine communities were devastated by the mass extinction, losing 50 percent of their species, geophysicist Douglas Robertson at the University of Colorado at Boulder and his colleagues looked at a database of western North America fossils and discovered freshwater ones there survived relatively unscathed, losing only about 10 percent of their species.
Dinosaur-Killing Comet Didn't Wipe Out Freshwater Species

Sounds fairly magical to me.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Apparently actually reading the reference material isn't your strong suit either. Right near the beginning of the article

I answered it with my first sentence. There's no reason to assume tectonics were different and thus that mountains and seabeds were radically different. A lot of creationists are under the mistaken impression that the supercontinent pangea (which predates any humans anyway) was the first such supercontinent. It wasn't, therefore tectonic clashing would have produced deep seas and tall mountains just like today. Your source is starting with an unsupported illogical assumption and trying to build a case from there.

Can you show me the physics and biology to back your opinion?

Take a live saltwater aquarium, put it in a cold room with no heater, no lights and add fresh water to it. See what happens.

Isn't it also an evolutionists view that life can adapt to changes?

If an animal can't get food because the lack of oceanic currents wrecked it's food distribution and starves, it won't have time to produce offspring with a beneficial adaptation. Pandas are on the verge of extinction because their specialized diets isn't changing fast enough to account for habitat loss unlike to more generalist brown and black bears

can posit that the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs could still be rationalized to allow for life to continue then a simple addition of water should be a snap right?

The k-pg extinction event wasn't the meteor, the meteor just capped the other problems with disease, climate changes and competition problems. Dinosaurs were already on the decline before the meteor struc . And anyway it didn't kill the dinosaurs as birds are avian dinosaurs, descended from the theropod dinosaurs which lived prior to to the k-pg event.

How much temperature change, current, ph, salinity and pressure of climate zones for sea animals have been affected by that?

The meteor? Not as much as a global flood would. A meteor has short term silt and ash deposits with some gradual temper changes over several years, and didn't effect pressure at all, and light levels not enough to inhibit photosynthesis more than a winter would.
40 days of double or triple psi gain, freshwater gain, plummeting into almost total darkness, creating an acidic environment from topsoil encroachment on biblical (ha pun) proportions, destruction of oceanic currents, instant death of all coral beds would kill pretty much all of the ocean. Like, all of it. There's really no comparing the two.

 

[gnostic]

No because as I said God lowered the mountains during the flood and raised them up again afterwards, as many as he decided to. So that means the mountains, formed during a catastrophic event, loaded with mud and corpses raised up out of the water and solidified into rock and fossils.

What a load of craps! LOL

Can you show to us, scientific sources as to where this "lowering" and "raising" mountains at will, come from?

Because that the most stupidest example of logic I have ever read.