"The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories"

[exchemist]

I was going to say earlier that most of those formations tend to be glacial, but there can be other causes. When it comes to giant kettles found on top of hills, or on areas such as Canada's shield granite, those are almost always from glacial origins.

Oh thanks for correcting me, I had thought they were usually due to water.

Does the movement of ice over the top cause a rock inside to grind it out, like a mortar and pestle, or something?

 

[exchemist]

Is there a difference between glacial potholes and giant's kettles? We call them hiidenkirnu, hiisi is like a goblin from our mythology and kirnu is churn.

Subduction Zone has set me straight. You are quite right. So I've learned something new today!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh thanks for correcting me, I had thought they were usually due to water.

Does the movement of ice over the top cause a rock inside to grind it out, like a mortar and pestle, or something?

Usually caused by the action of flowing water. At the bottom of a glacier there is often liquid water flowing. That along with stones and even small boulders that are carried by that water form a depression and that action can be thought to be akin to a mortar and pestle. The moving water swirls and causes the rocks to move and that erodes the pothole more and more. Since they are usually in low areas they can continue to form during floods even after the glacier that started them are gone. A couple of quick reads:

Glacial Potholes

Giant's kettle - Wikipedia

 

[Jumi]

Too cool, I did not know of this kind. I will read more about it

There are some pretty nice videos if you search youtube for glacial potholes. Quite a lot of them are in my country, there's one I know of in walking distance... So it's quite natural that we know about them.

 

[exchemist]

Usually caused by the action of flowing water. At the bottom of a glacier there is often liquid water flowing. That along with stones and even small boulders that are carried by that water form a depression and that action can be thought to be akin to a mortar and pestle. The moving water swirls and causes the rocks to move and that erodes the pothole more and more. Since they are usually in low areas they can continue to form during floods even after the glacier that started them are gone. A couple of quick reads:

Glacial Potholes

Giant's kettle - Wikipedia

Aha, so it is flowing water that is responsible, but it is the flow under a glacier!

Cool.

P.S. Tell you what, this forum is better for science than a number of the science forums I have tried!

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some pretty nice videos if you search youtube for glacial potholes. Quite a lot of them are in my country, there's one I know of in walking distance... So it's quite natural that we know about them.

The ones that I have seen took about an hour or two drive. Minnesota was ice covered too during the last glaciation, but where I lived it was all glacial till. And even if there was bedrock exposed it was far too soft to form these in my area.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aha, so it is flowing water that is responsible, but it is the flow under a glacier!

Cool.

P.S. Tell you what, this forum is better for science than a number of the science forums I have tried!

Weird stuff can form under a glacier. Since the water is enclosed it can even flow "uphill". One formation that I like are eskers. Think of an upside down deposit of river sediments. An under glacial stream can deposit a ridge of sediments as it flows:

Esker - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Weird stuff can form under a glacier. Since the water is enclosed it can even flow "uphill". One formation that I like are eskers. Think of an upside down deposit of river sediments. An under glacial stream can deposit a ridge of sediments as it flows:

Esker - Wikipedia

Yeah eskers, I was thinking of them. But had forgotten the name. We used to look for glacial features when I was a kid on holiday in the Scottish Highlands. Never saw an esker, but we did see lots of truncated spurs, misfit streams, trough ends and the like.

 

[Audie]

There are some pretty nice videos if you search youtube for glacial potholes. Quite a lot of them are in my country, there's one I know of in walking distance... So it's quite natural that we know about them.

NYC was under the glaciers, but, now something else
makes it hard to see the ground! There are rocks
exposed in Central Park, bedrock, that show striae.

 

[Audie]

Yeah eskers, I was thinking of them. But had forgotten the name. We used to look for glacial features when I was a kid on holiday in the Scottish Highlands. Never saw an esker, but we did see lots of truncated spurs, misfit streams, trough ends and the like.

A friend showed me a photo from Alaska, taken from a
727, of the Alaska range. Two glaciers, with just a thin
ridge between them, as they work headward up their valleys. Wonder how many years till they meet?
And then, who will capture who?

 

[viole]

"One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion---namely a universe that's 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and 'young Earth creationists' have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.


1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

​

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant

​

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape

​

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

7. The Flood caused the ice age

​

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

source

​

I found it interesting that the majority of these claims (I don't agree that all deserve top-ten status) don't have a thing to do with evolution---claims typical among creationists.

Clicking on the source link will bring you to a brief description of each claim, with further links (underlined) to relevant sites.

,​

Point 4 is actually correct. Tautologically correct.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Kurt Wise has a degree in geology. He is not a geologist. Having a degree and doing work in the field are two different things.

Just to be clear, although he does have a M.A. in geology, his PhD is in paleontology. And you're absolutely correct that having a degree in X doesn't automatically confer the right to call yourself an Xist.

.
.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"One of the most challenging tasks for the modern day creationist to is reconcile the belief in a 6,000 year old Earth with the ever-growing mountain of scientific evidence pointing to a vastly different conclusion---namely a universe that's 13.5 billion years old and an Earth that formed 4.5 billion years ago. So, given these astoundingly dramatic discrepancies, biblical literalists and 'young Earth creationists' have had no choice but to get pretty darned imaginative when brushing science aside. Here are 10 arguments creationists have made to counter scientific theories.


1. Humans and dinosaurs co-existed

​

2. Biological systems are too complex to have evolved

3. We can see light from distant galaxies because the speed of light is not constant

​

4. All hominid fossils are either fully human or fully ape

​

5. Stars and planets could have never formed from dust

6. The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

7. The Flood caused the ice age

​

8. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work

9. DNA is God's signature on all living things

10. The Grand Canyon was formed by receding flood waters

source

​

I found it interesting that the majority of these claims (I don't agree that all deserve top-ten status) don't have a thing to do with evolution---claims typical among creationists.

Clicking on the source link will bring you to a brief description of each claim, with further links (underlined) to relevant sites.

,​

I believe in Creation, but do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. The earth is alot older than 6000, For one the dinosaurs bones proves this

There were no humans living together with the dinosaurs, But yet man was there along side with the dinosaurs.
Now how is this possible ?

 

[exchemist]

I believe in Creation, but do not believe in a 6000 year old earth. The earth is alot older than 6000, For one the dinosaurs bones proves this

There were no humans living together with the dinosaurs, But yet man was there along side with the dinosaurs.
Now how is this possible ?

It isn't, because according to what the fossils tell us, man was not there alongside dinosaurs, The Flintstones notwithstanding.

The dinosaurs nearly all died out, as shown in the fossil record, at the end of the Cretaceous, 65m years ago. Some lines leading to modern birds evidently continued. (The well-known "transitional" fossils Archaeopteryx and Ichthyornis date from 150m yrs ago in the Jurassic, and from the late Cretaceous, respectively.)

Man only started to appear about 3 million years ago, so far as we know: 'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

 

[Faithofchristian]

It isn't, because according to what the fossils tell us, man was not there alongside dinosaurs, The Flintstones notwithstanding.

The dinosaurs nearly all died out, as shown in the fossil record, at the end of the Cretaceous, 65m years ago. Some lines leading to modern birds evidently continued. (The well-known "transitional" fossils Archaeopteryx and Ichthyornis date from 150m yrs ago in the Jurassic, and from the late Cretaceous, respectively.)

Man only started to appear about 3 million years ago, so far as we know: 'First human' discovered in Ethiopia

Man was there along with the dinosaurs,
Human man, of flesh and blood was not there,
But man was there along with the dinosaurs.

 

[Altfish]

Man was there along with the dinosaurs,
Human man, of flesh and blood was not there,
But man was there along with the dinosaurs.

Let's redefine the definition of man so it suits my holy book.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Let's redefine the definition of man so it suits my holy book.

Let's redefine the definition of man, that there are two species of man that are spoken about.
Now the question is, which man is which.
You without a doubt, have no clue or idea.

 

[Altfish]

Let's redefine the definition of man, that there are two species of man that are spoken about.
Now the question is, which man is which.
You without a doubt, have no clue or idea.

Which two species of man are you talking about?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Which two species of man are you talking about?

You have the human man of flesh and blood.
And you have the Spirit man, which is not of flesh and blood.

The Spirit man was there with the dinosaurs.
The Spirit man, are those like the Angel Gabriel, which Daniel the Prophet spoke about saying
( Even the man Gabriel, Daniel 9:21 )

And Michael and his angels Revelation 12:7,
These being the Spirit man, which are not of flesh and blood.
Which was there with the dinosaurs.

The spirit man are those that God spoke to in the book of Genesis 1:26, saying ( Let's us make man in our image, after our likeness )

So you have two species of man being talk about.
The one man, being of flesh and blood
And the other man, being the Spirit man which are the Angels.

 

[Polymath257]

You have the human man of flesh and blood.
And you have the Spirit man, which is not of flesh and blood.

The Spirit man was there with the dinosaurs.

But, of course, left no evidence. So there is no good reason to think it existed at all.