Evidence for and against young earth creationism.

[Sonofason]

Then there's the question of the distribution of kangaroos. If they had been on an ark that grounded somewhere else than Australia, how did the all get to Australia and not leave any trace elsewhere?

Unless I am mistaken, fossilization is actually a rare event, which requires sudden burial which would be necessary to prevent decomposition. It is very possible that kangaroos simply migrated to Australia before it became separated from the mainland Pangaea, which very well may have encompassed the entire earth as opposed to the current theory accepted by most scientists. There is no reason to think that they must have left a trail of fossils behind them.

 

[gnostic]

Unless I am mistaken, fossilization is actually a rare event, which requires sudden burial which would be necessary to prevent decomposition. It is very possible that kangaroos simply migrated to Australia before it became separated from the mainland Pangaea, which very well may have encompassed the entire earth as opposed to the current theory accepted by most scientists. There is no reason to think that they must have left a trail of fossils behind them.

Kangaroos can travel very far, very quickly.

But what about the slow-moving kolas or wombats? How would they travel that distance without being a snack for any large predator?

 

[Sonofason]

Kangaroos can travel very far, very quickly.

But what about the slow-moving kolas or wombats? How would they travel that distance without being a snack for any large predator?

I would suggest that there is the possibility that the earth was dramatically smaller than it is today. How far can a sloth crawl in one day? Apparently, the answer is 1.2 miles per hour. Allowing for time to eat and sleep, we might say sloths could travel about 15 miles per day. At that rate, it would take a community of sloths less than 6 years to circle today's globe. So, what was your question?

 

[Sapiens]

Unless I am mistaken, fossilization is actually a rare event, which requires sudden burial which would be necessary to prevent decomposition. It is very possible that kangaroos simply migrated to Australia before it became separated from the mainland Pangaea, which very well may have encompassed the entire earth as opposed to the current theory accepted by most scientists. There is no reason to think that they must have left a trail of fossils behind them.

That would have required Noah and his Ark to have occurred long before there were people on Earth and long before there were kangaroos.

The break up of Gondwana (part of Pangea) occurred in the early Jurassic period (about 184 million years ago) East Gondwana began to separate away. These were the land masses of Antarctica, Madagascar, India, and Australia, which separated from Africa. South America began to drift slowly west away from Africa as the South Atlantic Ocean formed, occurring about 130 million years ago during the Early Cretaceous.

 

[Sonofason]

That would have required Noah and his Ark to have occurred long before there were people on Earth and long before there were kangaroos.

The break up of Gondwana (part of Pangea) occurred in the early Jurassic period (about 184 million years ago) East Gondwana began to separate away. These were the land masses of Antarctica, Madagascar, India, and Australia, which separated from Africa. South America began to drift slowly west away from Africa as the South Atlantic Ocean formed, occurring about 130 million years ago during the Early Cretaceous.

You have no way to verify the date of 184 million years.

 

[Shad]

You have no way to verify the date of 184 million years.

Yes he does as there are various dating methods. Whereas you have merely attached the Noah story to a name of a continent while dismissing the very methods use to conclude it was a single continent; continent drift, plate tectonics and time.

Hilarious.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes he does as there are various dating methods. Whereas you have merely attached the Noah story to a name of a continent while dismissing the very methods use to conclude it was a single continent; continent drift, plate tectonics and time.

Hilarious.

Show me your evidence that continents are drifting. Show me the land masses that were subducted...name them. Yes, the earth was indeed a single land mass...but your mistake is that you think there were oceans...prove it.

 

[Shad]

Show me your evidence that continents are drifting.

Since you have already accepted Pangaea existed you have already accepted continent drift as it and calculation based on this drift over time lead to the conclusion of Pangaea. You just didn't about a primary basis for Pangaea.... The reason for this is that your comment was an ad hoc rescue based on shallow thinking.

If you reject continental drift there your comment was speculation based on speculation based on a story you think is true, nothing more.

You can read about the observations and evidence here if you wish: The Supporting Evidence Of Continental Drift Theory

Show me the land masses that were subducted...name them.

The Pacific plate.. heard of it?

Yes, the earth was indeed a single land mass..

A claim based on evidence you are ignorant of.

I guess you didn't know that the definition of continent includes boundaries of a landmass. Without an ocean there is no boundary thus no continent. This leaves only the Earth's crust as the whole which is not a continent.

.but your mistake is that you think there were oceans...prove it.

I never mentioned oceans. I do not need to prove any claim as you are claiming there are no oceans, thus it is your burden of proof to meet, not mine. It is your claim this landmass existed during Noah's time. It is your claim animals traveled across this landmass. It is your claim that this landmass suddenly transformed into the landmasses we have now after Noah's time.

All you have done is produce fallacious argument after fallacious argument while avoiding meeting any burden of proof. Try again son.

 

[Sapiens]

Without oceans the planet would be uninhabitable.

 

[psychoslice]

Without oceans the planet would be uninhabitable.

I like that, but can I ask you what you mean by that ?.

 

[Sonofason]

Since you have already accepted Pangaea existed you have already accepted continent drift as it and calculation based on this drift over time lead to the conclusion of Pangaea. You just didn't about a primary basis for Pangaea.... The reason for this is that your comment was an ad hoc rescue based on shallow thinking.

You may be right. There is a specific model that scientists use which they refer to as Pangaea, and I am telling you that this model of Pangaea is flawed, in that the model clearly shows Pangaea as a single continental land mass that is surrounded by oceans. I am suggesting that this model is flawed, that there were no oceans surrounding the single continental land mass that I am now calling Pangaea. The single landmass encompassed the entire earth. There were no oceans, but only shallow seas. As the earth expanded, fractures developed in the crust. As the earth expanded more, these fractured land masses were torn apart creating separation between them. Mantle material filled in these spaces and became filled in with water from the planets surface. Thus, nothing is drifting anywhere. The fracturing and continuing fracturing is a result of the expansion of the earth, which of course is gradually increasing the earth's diameter and circumference. No shallow thinking here...just critical thinking. I am not a person who has a great deal of faith in words simply because they are spoken in the name of science. I require evidence for everything I believe. Do you? Apperently you don't, and you accept everything you are told without any critical thought whatsoever.

If you reject continental drift there your comment was speculation based on speculation based on a story you think is true, nothing more.

Your statement here is a very good example of speculation based on speculation. I call that the pot calling the kettle black.

You can read about the observations and evidence here if you wish: The Supporting Evidence Of Continental Drift Theory

I thought you'd have evidence to share, but apparently your knowledge stops with a quick copy and paste. I want you to explain and prove the processes that you claim are at work here.

The Pacific plate.. heard of it?

Of course, it is an oceanic plate that is much younger than every single continental land mass on the planet, that goes for the atlantic ocean and the pacific ocean. It is true of all of the oceans of the earth.

A claim based on evidence you are ignorant of.

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. I am far from ignorant on these matters.

I guess you didn't know that the definition of continent includes boundaries of a landmass. Without an ocean there is no boundary thus no continent. This leaves only the Earth's crust as the whole which is not a continent.

Clearly you're not listening. The Earth's crust includes continental plates and oceanic plates. As I have said, the oceanic plates are younger than continental plates. The single land mass that broke up that scientists call Pangaea was the earth's crust before it broke up due to the expansion of the earth.

I never mentioned oceans. I do not need to prove any claim as you are claiming there are no oceans, thus it is your burden of proof to meet, not mine. It is your claim this landmass existed during Noah's time. It is your claim animals traveled across this landmass. It is your claim that this landmass suddenly transformed into the landmasses we have now after Noah's time.

Come on, wake up. Of course there are oceans. As soon as the single land mass Pangaea broke up, and began separating, the process of ocean building began, and it continues to this day. One day, the earth will be so large, you'll have a very hard time finding an ocean to swim in. Well, not in your lifetime, but maybe in mine.

All you have done is produce fallacious argument after fallacious argument while avoiding meeting any burden of proof. Try again son.

Hey if you want to learn something which you never understood, listen to me...I'll set you straight. But if you want to keep your faith in a science that is based on a lie, then by all means, have at it.

 

[JakofHearts]

Okay. October 2nd at sundown, I begin to celebrate Rosh HaShanah. Humankind will be 5777 years old. 1656 years after Adam and Eve were created, the Flood happened. So 4121 years ago, the earth was destroyed by a Flood.

This is not an argument about creation versus evolution. This is an argument for and against a young earth. I opened up my mind a little and researched evidence of civilizations older than 4121 years, and even older than 5777 years.

I accept that a proper understanding of Genesis 1 doesn't preclude a lengthy period of time for creation. That the 6 days prior to Adam being created time didn't pass at the same rate it does now.

So what I'm saying is, produce for me evidence that can't be denied, that if there was a global flood, that it was significantly longer than 4121 years ago. Or produce for me evidence that can't be denied that civilizations existed prior to 5777 years ago.

Again, this is not an argument about evolution versus creation, but rather an argument about how old is human civilization.

I remember a discovery back in October of some sort of tool made out of aluminum carbon-dated at over 200,000 years. Pretty sophisticated stuff for knuckle draggers and cave dwellers.

There has been also a number of underwater "anomalies" found throughout the world that would probably make the monkey philosophy sweat a little. Yonaguni City in Japan dated at least over 100,000 years old, the baltic sea anomaly, Cuban underwater city and so on.

 

[Sonofason]

Without oceans the planet would be uninhabitable.

Where do you come up with that? A lack of oceans does not necessitate a lack of water.

 

[Skwim]

Where do you come up with that? A lack of oceans does not necessitate a lack of water.

But a lack of oceans would make life impossible.

"Oceans basically have two life-supporting roles. First, they absorb and distribute solar radiation. Without water, harsh rays from the sun would bake the equator while distributing almost no energy to the poles, especially in the winter. Fortunately for us, water does a great job of absorbing energy, and the oceans regulate temperatures around the Earth. Currents circulate warm tropical waters to the north and south and cold water back to the equator, distributing heat energy so that no place gets too hot for life to survive and warming colder areas. Second, the oceans feed the water cycle — the movement of water from the seas to the air to the clouds, across miles and back again to the sea or to fall on land.

When water is heated at the equator, it evaporates and becomes clouds. As warm air rises, it also draws in cooler air from underneath. This process stimulates more even heat distribution, turning places where it would otherwise be too cold to live into lush, balmy gardens. That's why the Mediterranean is so temperate and why there are places in Scotland, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where you can grow palm trees.

But let's get back to what would happen if the oceans were gone. In this scenario, we're going to say the oceans have turned to dirt. We'd like to give ourselves a small window of survivability, so let's say the dirt is moist enough that it won't immediately turn the planet into an enormous dust storm.

The oceans are gone, but we still have some water. Let's take stock. Ice caps, lakes and rivers (which now flow to vast expanses of soil) and underground water are still available. Added together, those sources total about 3.5 percent of our present water supply, the other 96.5 percent having disappeared with the oceans. That's not enough to get a decent worldwide water cycle going, even if we melted the ice caps. (About 68.7 percent of Earth's fresh water is frozen in glaciers, ice caps and permanent snow, mostly in Antarctica [source: USGS].) Without clouds forming over the ocean, rain would be incredibly rare, and the planet would become desert. We'd watch our lakes and water supplies dwindle a little more every year until nothing was left."
source and more


.​

 

[Sonofason]

But a lack of oceans would make life impossible.

"Oceans basically have two life-supporting roles. First, they absorb and distribute solar radiation. Without water, harsh rays from the sun would bake the equator while distributing almost no energy to the poles, especially in the winter. Fortunately for us, water does a great job of absorbing energy, and the oceans regulate temperatures around the Earth. Currents circulate warm tropical waters to the north and south and cold water back to the equator, distributing heat energy so that no place gets too hot for life to survive and warming colder areas. Second, the oceans feed the water cycle — the movement of water from the seas to the air to the clouds, across miles and back again to the sea or to fall on land.

When water is heated at the equator, it evaporates and becomes clouds. As warm air rises, it also draws in cooler air from underneath. This process stimulates more even heat distribution, turning places where it would otherwise be too cold to live into lush, balmy gardens. That's why the Mediterranean is so temperate and why there are places in Scotland, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where you can grow palm trees.

But let's get back to what would happen if the oceans were gone. In this scenario, we're going to say the oceans have turned to dirt. We'd like to give ourselves a small window of survivability, so let's say the dirt is moist enough that it won't immediately turn the planet into an enormous dust storm.

The oceans are gone, but we still have some water. Let's take stock. Ice caps, lakes and rivers (which now flow to vast expanses of soil) and underground water are still available. Added together, those sources total about 3.5 percent of our present water supply, the other 96.5 percent having disappeared with the oceans. That's not enough to get a decent worldwide water cycle going, even if we melted the ice caps. (About 68.7 percent of Earth's fresh water is frozen in glaciers, ice caps and permanent snow, mostly in Antarctica [source: USGS].) Without clouds forming over the ocean, rain would be incredibly rare, and the planet would become desert. We'd watch our lakes and water supplies dwindle a little more every year until nothing was left."
source and more


.​

Oh no, I never said the water was not on the earth...I said there were no oceans. Some of the water was in the upper atmosphere acting as a shield against solar radiation, and a great deal was on the earth. But none of it was dirt. Lets stick to the facts rather than your speculations.

 

[Skwim]

Oh no, I never said the water was not on the earth...

Yes, I know.

I said there were no oceans.

Yes, I know.

Some of the water was in the upper atmosphere acting as a shield against solar radiation, and a great deal was on the earth. But none of it was dirt. Lets stick to the facts rather than your speculations.

What speculations are those?

Sapiens said: Without oceans the planet would be uninhabitable.

You replied: Where do you come up with that? A lack of oceans does not necessitate a lack of water.

I explained: But a lack of oceans would make life impossible.

"Oceans basically have two life-supporting roles. First, they absorb and distribute solar radiation. Without water, harsh rays from the sun would bake the equator while distributing almost no energy to the poles, especially in the winter. Fortunately for us, water does a great job of absorbing energy, and the oceans regulate temperatures around the Earth. Currents circulate warm tropical waters to the north and south and cold water back to the equator, distributing heat energy so that no place gets too hot for life to survive and warming colder areas. Second, the oceans feed the water cycle — the movement of water from the seas to the air to the clouds, across miles and back again to the sea or to fall on land.

When water is heated at the equator, it evaporates and becomes clouds. As warm air rises, it also draws in cooler air from underneath. This process stimulates more even heat distribution, turning places where it would otherwise be too cold to live into lush, balmy gardens. That's why the Mediterranean is so temperate and why there are places in Scotland, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where you can grow palm trees.

But let's get back to what would happen if the oceans were gone. In this scenario, we're going to say the oceans have turned to dirt. We'd like to give ourselves a small window of survivability, so let's say the dirt is moist enough that it won't immediately turn the planet into an enormous dust storm.

The oceans are gone, but we still have some water. Let's take stock. Ice caps, lakes and rivers (which now flow to vast expanses of soil) and underground water are still available. Added together, those sources total about 3.5 percent of our present water supply, the other 96.5 percent having disappeared with the oceans. That's not enough to get a decent worldwide water cycle going, even if we melted the ice caps. (About 68.7 percent of Earth's fresh water is frozen in glaciers, ice caps and permanent snow, mostly in Antarctica [source: USGS].) Without clouds forming over the ocean, rain would be incredibly rare, and the planet would become desert. We'd watch our lakes and water supplies dwindle a little more every year until nothing was left."​

Are you saying these conclusions of science are mere speculations? And just what are these facts we should be sticking to?

​

 

[Shad]

You may be right. There is a specific model that scientists use which they refer to as Pangaea, and I am telling you that this model of Pangaea is flawed, in that the model clearly shows Pangaea as a single continental land mass that is surrounded by oceans.

Show this model is wrong. Until you do all you are doing is making assertions

I am suggesting that this model is flawed, that there were no oceans surrounding the single continental land mass that I am now calling Pangaea.

Argument from ignorance. All you have done is declare one model wrong while never establishing your model is correct. You asserted it as correct, nothing more

The single landmass encompassed the entire earth.

Then it is not a continent anymore

There were no oceans, but only shallow seas.

Evidence? Oh wait I forgot you are just making assertions

As the earth expanded, fractures developed in the crust. As the earth expanded more, these fractured land masses were torn apart creating separation between them. Mantle material filled in these spaces and became filled in with water from the planets surface. Thus, nothing is drifting anywhere. The fracturing and continuing fracturing is a result of the expansion of the earth, which of course is gradually increasing the earth's diameter and circumference. No shallow thinking here...just critical thinking. I am not a person who has a great deal of faith in words simply because they are spoken in the name of science. I require evidence for everything I believe. Do you? Apperently you don't, and you accept everything you are told without any critical thought whatsoever.

Assertions again

Your statement here is a very good example of speculation based on speculation. I call that the pot calling the kettle black.

No you used the name of continent that was developed by a certain set of models. You have equivocated this continent with your ad hoc rescue continent that nothing to do with what is known as Pangaea. You never clarified a difference until I pressed the issue. This is a problem of your sloppy language and arguments. Sorry son but unlike yourself I was taught the modern model of Pangaea that is taught in basic k-12 and beyond. Your made up idea is not taught in school but is solely an ad hoc rescue developed and propagated by apologists, nothing more. It was your speculation that your relatively unknown and unimportant Not-Pangaea but Pangaea model is something I should be familiar with.

The only speculation I made is that your have some sort of modern education. You showed this to be a mistake as you are not familiar with modern geology and how it is taught in schools.

I thought you'd have evidence to share, but apparently your knowledge stops with a quick copy and paste.

You didn't bother reading the article as it mentions the evidence you demanded. Not my problem you do not read anything that refutes your belief.

I want you to explain and prove the processes that you claim are at work here.

Read the article. Ironically you are demanding something from me that you never put forward in your own assertions. Lovely double-standards you have.

Of course, it is an oceanic plate that is much younger than every single continental land mass on the planet, that goes for the atlantic ocean and the pacific ocean. It is true of all of the oceans of the earth.

You asked evidence of subduction. I gave you the very name of one plate.

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. I am far from ignorant on these matters.

Considering you didn't know the models which are used to develop the idea of Pangaea my statement is accurate.

Clearly you're not listening. The Earth's crust includes continental plates and oceanic plates.

You clearly do not understand that we identify continent and ocean crusts as part of the whole. Without either there are no continents

As I have said, the oceanic plates are younger than continental plates. The single land mass that broke up that scientists call Pangaea was the earth's crust before it broke up due to the expansion of the earth.

Considering their model develops a far different idea than your own you are talking about something different. Again you are asserting they are wrong, nothing more

Come on, wake up. Of course there are oceans.

Yet you denied there were oceans at some point during the existences of Pangaea.

As soon as the single land mass Pangaea broke up, and began separating, the process of ocean building began, and it continues to this day.

Assertions, nothing more.

One day, the earth will be so large, you'll have a very hard time finding an ocean to swim in. Well, not in your lifetime, but maybe in mine.

Assertion, nothing more

Hey if you want to learn something which you never understood, listen to me...I'll set you straight. But if you want to keep your faith in a science that is based on a lie, then by all means, have at it.

All you are doing is making more assertions backed by arrogance that your unsupported claims have merit and you are teaching me something. I will teach you something now. It is called burden of proof. Heard of it? Maybe try to actually meet it rather than relying upon assertion after assertion then demand I have shallow and fallacious thinking you display.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Are you saying these conclusions of science are mere speculations?

Yes.

And just what are these facts we should be sticking to?

You're the one standing behind "science." Or rather guesswork defined as science.

 

[gnostic]

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.

If you read the translation of the Greek Septuagint (Codex Vaticanus) and calculated the years in Genesis genealogy, you would notice that Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, had also survived the flood for 14 years, and yet there are no mention of Methuselah boarding the Ark.

The other Septuagint codex (Alexandrinus) say the Methuselah died died 6 years before the Flood, so the 2 codices contradicted each other.

The Hebrew Masoretic Text (which most modern English translations are based on) and the Latin Vulgate bible calculate Methuselah's death on the same year as the Flood. According to Jewish legend, he died one week before the Flood.

It is not important, but I thought I just let you know that tidbit of useless information that I have found.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, I know.


Yes, I know.

What speculations are those?

Sapiens said: Without oceans the planet would be uninhabitable.

You replied: Where do you come up with that? A lack of oceans does not necessitate a lack of water.

I explained: But a lack of oceans would make life impossible.

"Oceans basically have two life-supporting roles. First, they absorb and distribute solar radiation. Without water, harsh rays from the sun would bake the equator while distributing almost no energy to the poles, especially in the winter. Fortunately for us, water does a great job of absorbing energy, and the oceans regulate temperatures around the Earth. Currents circulate warm tropical waters to the north and south and cold water back to the equator, distributing heat energy so that no place gets too hot for life to survive and warming colder areas. Second, the oceans feed the water cycle — the movement of water from the seas to the air to the clouds, across miles and back again to the sea or to fall on land.​

You are the only one saying there was no water. That just simply is not true.

When water is heated at the equator, it evaporates and becomes clouds. As warm air rises, it also draws in cooler air from underneath. This process stimulates more even heat distribution, turning places where it would otherwise be too cold to live into lush, balmy gardens. That's why the Mediterranean is so temperate and why there are places in Scotland, warmed by the Gulf Stream, where you can grow palm trees.

Why do you suggest that water only evaporates at the equator? Do you not know that ice caps evaporate as well, or do you need a refresher course in basic chemistry?

But let's get back to what would happen if the oceans were gone. In this scenario, we're going to say the oceans have turned to dirt. We'd like to give ourselves a small window of survivability, so let's say the dirt is moist enough that it won't immediately turn the planet into an enormous dust storm.

Yes, I know. Why do you continue to insist that there was no water. This is absurd. Don't you hear what you are saying.

The oceans are gone, but we still have some water. Let's take stock. Ice caps, lakes and rivers (which now flow to vast expanses of soil) and underground water are still available. Added together, those sources total about 3.5 percent of our present water supply, the other 96.5 percent having disappeared with the oceans. That's not enough to get a decent worldwide water cycle going, even if we melted the ice caps. (About 68.7 percent of Earth's fresh water is frozen in glaciers, ice caps and permanent snow, mostly in Antarctica [source: USGS].) Without clouds forming over the ocean, rain would be incredibly rare, and the planet would become desert. We'd watch our lakes and water supplies dwindle a little more every year until nothing was left."

This is why I don't like talking to atheists and liberals. They can't hear anything but themselves, and they can't see anything beyond what they imagine. Please stick to the facts of the discussion.​

Are you saying these conclusions of science are mere speculations? And just what are these facts we should be sticking to?

I never said that oceans disappeared. You sure have a vivid imagination. Can you please have a look at your dictionary and reacquaint yourself with the word ocean. Do you realize that water can exist on a planet without oceans? Or is that too hard for you to see? I'm thinking the latter. Some people just can't comprehend anything at all, and I'm thinking you are one of those people, sad to say.