The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[DeepShadow]

An oscillating ice age theory doesn't hold water here.

Who's using such a theory? The prevailing explanation for Niagra is that a glacier carved out the area and then melted. There was no river there to make the falls before the glacier, according to that explanation.

Earlier you apoligized for dismissing this thread as just killing time, which is why I'm back, but your greatest insult to all of us remains: you claim scientific credibility, but you failed to respond when we requested the first and most important criteria of any scientific hypothesis: falsifiability. Without this, you may have a charming concept, and I may even believe in it, but I can't call it science, because science has to be falsifiable.

Again, where is the falsifiability? Until you answer this, your apology is basically empty.

 

[DeepShadow]

The website you reference has data that contradicts your hypothesis, for example:

But when the Falls tore through this section of river 4,500 years ago, it exposed rock layers laid down as sediments in tropical, saltwater seas approximately 400 to 440 million years ago. These layers of clays, muds, sands and shells were then "cooked" under pressure into sedimentary rock.

Selecting only the data you like is called "cherry picking," and it's intellectually dishonest. Sometimes it happens accidentally due to a cognitive mistake called "confirmation bias." Either way, I'm hereby calling your attention to the data you've overlooked.

You need to address this data: based on your hypothesis, the rock that the falls has been cutting through has been under it all the 12,500 years. That rock contains shells of sea animals. How did they get there?

Note: I have made no ad hominims here. I have attacked your logic, not your sources, nor you.

 

[McBell]

So lets just say the earth is 40 million years old.

Okay 40,000,000 X 3 feet per year (rate Niagra has cut, per year, away from the canyon rim)

Which equals 120 million feet, divided by 5280 feet per mile, equals 22,727 miles.

Right now there is a 7 miles gorge cut into the earth/canyon rim, so where's the 23,000 mile long gorge?

There is no gorge even 2,300 miles long there or anywhere else in the world for that matter.

There is a definite starting point at which Niagra has cut into the outer canyon rim...

From that starting point, to the present position of Niagra Falls, only 7 miles of earth have been removed.. The falls have cut a 7 mile long gorge into the earth.

Let me guess some of you are thinking that these great rivers change their courses every 10,000 years or so due to great upheavals of earth, because of eartchquakes volcanos, etc...

Or these great rivers have frozen over every 10,000 years or so. If that were true then there would still be a great gorge cut out of the earth each time the earth came out of these fictional ice ages and then entered back into them again..

An oscillating ice age theory doesn't hold water here.

Show me the flaws in this theory....

Even if there were proof of an oscillating ice age it still would not account for the short 7 mile gorge cut into the canyon rim, unless that area of the world was frozen over from the beginning of the earth's creation, then suddenly decided to unthaw, just 12,500 years ago, there being no flow before then. Also there is no proof Niagra has ever changed it's course and even if it did there would be more gorges cut into the earth. Lets see that would be what 20 gorges divided by 20,000 miles so even if the river had changed it's course 20 times over millions of years there would still have to be at least a 1,000 mile gorge cut into the earth from any number of points along the canyon rim..

Niagra has existed only 12,500 years, according to this site, Niagra Parks, and so has the earth existed just beyond that.

I need to get an aerial view of this 7 mile gorge Niagra has cut into the earth to better illustrate my point...

And yet you still have not gained any insight from the joke I presented twice in this very thread.

You have made several self serving assumptions in your Niagara falls theory.
The most obvious assumption is that the falls had to start at the same time as the creation of the earth.
Another assumption is that the rate of erosion is a constant.
Yet another assumption is that there were no other phenomenon in all that time, I.E. earthquake.

 

[FFH]

The prevailing explanation for Niagra is that a glacier carved out the area and then melted.

So for X number of millions or even billions of years that area was frozen solid, until just over 10,000 years ago. Wow some global warming trend that was and what caused it...There is no proof of there ever having been a glacier there...

One big clue, ice does not cut into the earth in the same way that this great river has done....

Ice did not cut this 7 mile long gorge, water did...

Show me the proof that ice can cut a gorge like the one we see...

 

[DeepShadow]

So for X number of millions or even billions of years that area was frozen solid, until just over 10,000 years ago.

I never said that, and no one else here has. Stop speaking for me.

Wow some global warming trend that was and what caused it...There is no proof of there ever having been a glacier there...

Except the glacial patterns in the rocks, the mineral deposits, the pollen grains. How do you account for those?

One big clue, ice does not cut into the earth in the same way that this great river has done....

That's right, which is why the river only started carving after the ice melted...just like I said.

Ice did not cut this 7 mile long gorge, water did...

Which is, again, exactly what I said.

Show me the proof that ice can cut a gorge like the one we see...

I don't need to. Speaking of proof, you still have to state a case for falsifiability of your overall hypothesis. If having scientific validity is so important to you, why are you not taking this first important step?

 

[FFH]

The website you reference has data that contradicts your hypothesis

I'm fully aware of the contents of that site. It's easy to mix facts with fiction...

How is it possible that a 12,500 year old gorge could suddenly become 400 million years old...

Selecting only the data you like is called "cherry picking," and it's intellectually dishonest. Sometimes it happens accidentally due to a cognitive mistake called "confirmation bias." Either way, I'm hereby calling your attention to the data you've overlooked.

I'm fully aware of the false/fictional data mixed into the true data/age of the falls...

Again how could a 12,500 year old gorge suddenly become a 400 million years old? There is absolutely no logic in that whatsoever.

The missing link is the fact that there was a Great Flood which covered the earth and deposited great heaps of sediment, burying small sea creatures in the gorge. They assume these deposits are old when in fact they are the result of a world wide flood...

With enough pressure and heat, rocks form quickly, not in millions of years but in days or months..

Simple facts mixed in with fiction... and I'm sure the rebuttal would be just the reverse in the case of an evolutionist.

You need to address this data: based on your hypothesis, the rock that the falls has been cutting through has been under it all the 12,500 years. That rock contains shells of sea animals. How did they get there?

Again world wide flood...

Note: I have made no ad hominims here. I have attacked your logic, not your sources, nor you.

I appreciate that and I erased my previous post before I saw yours, in which I had come off as rude, which really was not my intention, but apparently I didn't erase it soon enough, before you saw it and quoted it, sorry...

 

[FFH]

I never said that, and no one else here has. Stop speaking for me.

I wasn't speaking for you, but was addressing the theory you said existed that ice had carved at least some of the gorge.

Except the glacial patterns in the rocks, the mineral deposits, the pollen grains. How do you account for those?

Again rsults of a world wide flood..

"Glacial patterns" ??? or just different periods of temporary cold/freezing/winter and warm/melting/summer weather patterns...

That's right, which is why the river only started carving after the ice melted...just like I said.

Prove there was permanent ice and snow there for million of years, no one can, just theories...

I don't need to. Speaking of proof, you still have to state a case for falsifiability of your overall hypothesis. If having scientific validity is so important to you, why are you not taking this first important step?

I've already presented proof in this case, the gorge is 7 miles long and has eroded, starting from the outer rim, 3 feet a year, resulting in a 12,500 year old gorge cut by Niagra river...

Show me the loophole in this theory...

It's a perfect time piece, in which to date the creation of the earth...

There are no flaws in my theory...

The only way to discredit my theory is to claim ice age, ice age over and over, of which there is no proof of whatsoever only bad science....

 

[FFH]

There is tons of evidence for a world wide flood, finding shells of sea creatures in a gorge like is one, proves, without a doubt, the seas had, at one time, broken their boundaries temporarily.

 

[McBell]

How is it possible that a 12,500 year old gorge could suddenly become 400 million years old...

Who said that it has?
Why must it have started the same time as creation?
Do you think that the rocky mountains have been there exactly as they are now since the Earth began?
Is it not at least possible for there to have been an earthquake, or some other phenomenon, that started the falls a mere 12,500 years ago?


It seems to me that you have presented this theory of yours and that is the end of it for you.
You have thus far ignored disregarded and or dismissed everything that has been shown to poke holes in your theory.

This is not science.
This is merely clinging to a theory at all cost, regardless of the facts.

 

[FFH]

What proofs do you want DeepShadow, that there wasn't an ice age ???

No one can prove the non existence of something, so the burden of proof falls upon you to prove there was a glacier where the river now flows..

Glacier patterns can be refuted as nothing more than evidences of natural seasonal changes, locked into the sediment/rock, which has been proven to be able to form quickly under the right conditions....

Rocks are not millions of years old, but were created by a little heat, pressure and time...

Various types of rocks have been recreated in laboratories in a matter of days, weeks and months....

 

[DeepShadow]

I wasn't speaking for you, but was addressing the theory you said existed that ice had carved at least some of the gorge.

Ah, there's the mistake, then: I never said that ice carved the 7-mile gorge you are referring to. I also believe that water carved that. The glacier AFAIK carved out the entire local area and carved the valley into which the river itself flowed. Glacier created valley, valley created river, river created gorge.

"Glacial patterns" ??? or just different periods of temporary cold/freezing/winter and warm/melting/summer weather patterns...

Lower portions of glaciers are super-compressed ice that fracture in particular patterns and can carve rock. Those patterns of fracture and carving are used to identify glacial areas. If there was no glacier, what caused these patterns?

Prove there was permanent ice and snow there for million of years, no one can, just theories...

Theories that may not be true, but are at least falsifiable by criterion that has not been met yet. Why do you allow your hypothesis to neglect this major step that all these "lesser" theories have met?

Should I call for a vote? How many of us have asked for a falsifiablity criterion? How many of us are hurt by your neglect of our requests?

How many of us want FFH to address the issue of falsifiability before we continue with this thread? Let's have a vote.

I'll go you one better, FFH: I want you to be correct. If you will simply meet the criterion of falsifiability, I'll join your side and argue on your behalf. But if you can't do that, no matter how I want and even believe it to be true, it fails to qualify as science.

I'm fine with that, really. There are plenty of things that are true, that can't be proven.

 

[McBell]

What proofs do you want DeepShadow, that there wasn't an ice age ???

No one can prove the non existence of something, so the burden of proof falls upon you to prove there was a glacier where the river now flows..

Glacier patterns can be refuted as nothing more than evidences of natural seasonal changes, locked into the sediment/rock, which has been proven cab form quickly under the right conditions....

Rocks are not millions of years old, but were created by a little heat, pressure and time...

Various types of Rocks have been recreated in laboratories in a matter of days, weeks and months....

So what?
Just because it can be done that way in a laboratory does not mean that that is how it happened.
Unless of course you have proof...

 

[Comprehend]

this thread is awesome....

Mostly because I have not been sucked into it...

LOL

 

[FFH]

Do you think that the rocky mountains have been there exactly as they are now since the Earth began?
Is it not at least possible for there to have been an earthquake, or some other phenomenon, that started the falls a mere 12,500 years ago?

Earthquakes don't change topography that drastically...

When was the last time you saw a mountain appear where there was no mountain before ???

Prove to me that drastic changes have occured in the earth's topography in the last 12,000 years. There is no record of any drastic changes in the earth's basic topography, even during the flood, back to the time of Adam...

Prove to me that the earth existed beyond the 13,000 years I have theorized...

False theories and notions of the earth being millions of years old are old school and boring to me, yawn...

Let's look at the young earth evidences and give them a chance..

It seems to me that you have presented this theory of yours and that is the end of it for you.
You have thus far ignored disregarded and or dismissed everything that has been shown to poke holes in your theory.

This is not science.
This is merely clinging to a theory at all cost, regardless of the facts.

What facts ??? I only see theories not evidences or facts....and you may all say the same thing about the evidences I have presented thus far...

I'm not done with this thead and I plan on presenting more evidences in the future, but I only have a certain amount of time to study and post these evidences...

For now I can only rely on the research done by others, which I have posted...

When was the last time you went out and researched a theory yourself ???

We can look at the research done by others and decide for ourselves...

Google is a great place to start...

Will keep googling for evidence to present in the future, which I see point to a young earth and more specifically a 13,000 year old earth....

Niagra Falls just happens to be one of those time pieces which points to a beginning of life on earth...at least the flow of water over the land due to rainfall...

 

[McBell]

this thread is awesome....

Mostly because I have not been sucked into it...

LOL

Careful.
You are getting closer to being sucked in.
:run:

 

[McBell]

Earthquakes don't change topography that drastically...

When was the last time you saw a mountain appear where there was no mountain before ???

Prove to me that drastic changes have occured in the earth's topography in the last 12,000 years. There is no record of any drastic changes in the earth's basic topography, even during the flood, back to the time of Adam...

Prove to me that the earth existed beyond the 13,000 years I have theorised...

False theories and notions of the earth being millions of years old are old school and boring to me, yawn...

Let's look at the young earth evidences and give them a chance..

What facts ??? I only see theories not evidences or facts....and you may all say the same thing about the evidences I have presented thus far...

I'm not done with this thead and I plan on presenting more evidences in the future, but I only have a certain amount of time to study and post these evidences...

For now I can only rely on the research done by others, which I have posted...

When was the last time you went out and researched a theory yourself ???

We can look at the research done by others and decide for ourselves...

Google is a great place to start...

Will keep googling for evidence to present in the future, which I see point to a yong earth and more specifically a 13,000 year old earth....

Niagra Falls just happens to be one of those time pieces which points to a beginning of life on earth...at least the flow of water over the land due to rainfall...

you have got to be kidding me.
You present nothing but your theory with faulty logic, faulty reasoning, and tons of self serving assumptions and want us to accept it as "science" yet have not fulfilled the first basic scientific need.

Then with all your whining about ad hominem you go there yourself:

When was the last time you went out and researched a theory yourself ???
​

Thus far you have not given any need for me to do any more research than I already have.
Since you cannot even properly address the issues already presented that show potentially serious flaws in your theory, I really see no need to do further research into the subject.

 

[FFH]

you have got to be kidding me.
You present nothing but your theory with faulty logic, faulty reasoning, and tons of self serving assumptions and want us to accept it as "science" yet have not fulfilled the first basic scientific need.

Then with all your whining about ad hominem you go there yourself:

When was the last time you went out and researched a theory yourself ???
​

Thus far you have not given any need for me to do any more research than I already have.
Since you cannot even properly address the issues already presented that show potentially serious flaws in your theory, I really see no need to do further research into the subject.

Okay fair enough I will do some more research on the/my "Niagra Falls" theory, which validates my postition of a 13,000 year old earth.

Will be back with more evidence using the Niagra River and it's falls as evidence that the earth is just 13,000 years old..

 

[Kcnorwood]

Careful.
You are getting closer to being sucked in.
:run:

I'm feeling the suckyness now.....

 

[DeepShadow]

Okay fair enough I will do some more research on the/my "Niagra Falls" theory, which validates my postition of a 13,000 year old earth.

Will you please start with falsifiability, so I can help you?

 

[FFH]

Will you please start with falsifiability, so I can help you?

Give me an example of what you want to hear...

I have presented a measurable way to clue us in on the time frame of the first days of creation, based on natural erosion of a rim, due to a great river, which has eroded 7 miles of earth to the current position of Niagra Falls and I'm supposed to believe a theory that a sea shell found in this gorge, imbedded in solid rock, (which has been proven to form quickly under the right conditions), is 400 million years old, just because there is no sea there today ?...

World wide flood is all I need to know and for those who doubt the Bible I would say just look at it in it's historical context and see if it does not deem to be accurate... Even Saddam Hussein patterned his life after, or tried to emulate, the ancient king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar...so why should we throw out the flood as an historical event, by ignoring it, while at the same tiem we recognize many other historical events and people mentioned in the BIble...