There is irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed in a short time, the worldwide flood.

[SavedByTheLord]

Making bare assertions and unsupported claims is not the same as "proving" something.

Gentry has real evidence that disproves evolution and billions of years.
Of course all evidence does that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

He won't. He will just repeat his claims and pretend that is enough.

I know. I like proving the point though.

 

[blü 2]

Single layer of sediment? Why?

Because it's in the nature of floods both for dissolved minerals in their water and for soil and like materials loosened by floods to sink to the bottom, which in this story was the entire earth.

In response...how do you explain oil and coal deposits globally that are clearly the result of sedimentary burial of plants and animals?

You can read about coal >here< ─ note particularly the heading "Formation".

​

Why should there be a genetic bottleneck?

Because of the miniscule populations of the post-flood breeding stock from which all land animals are descended, says the tale ─ in each case one or two or seven breeding pairs, depending on the critter. You can read about genetic bottlenecks >here<.

Actually if the earth was billions of years old, genetic degradation would he the problem, not bottleneck for YEC. I think loss of DNA information is a far bigger problem.

All the examinable evidence points to the sun and solar system including the earth forming about 4.5 bn years ago. You can get an outline of the science >here<.

Billions of metres of water???

Do the sum. In the story the water covers the tops of the highest mountains (Genesis 7:18-19).

At that time the highest mountains were, as now, in the Himalayas. How much water over and above the water presently on the earth is needed to lift the level of the oceans so that the top of Mt Everest is under water? The sum is as follows.

Let r be the radius of the earth from center to mean ocean surface.

Let e be the height from the mean ocean surface to the tip of everest.

Let L be the total volume of land above sea level.

So the amount of water you need to raise the oceans so that they cover the top of Everest as the bible says they did is ─

W = (4/3) × π × (r+e)³ ─ (4/3) × π × r³ ─ L

Do the sum. The answer W will be some 1.113 bn cubic miles of water.

It must have existed on earth to cover Everest. Where is it now, do you say?

The bible says specifically " the fountains of the deep burst forth"

If such things had existed, they'd make no noticeable difference. The water can't rise until all the hollows of the earth below it are full of water, fountains of the deep or no fountains of the deep.

Are you able to.prove that there are is such thing as underground aquifers and that before the flood those aquifers were significantly different to what they are today?

That's your problem. My argument doesn't depend on fantasies like "the fountains of the deep".

Icecaps, if they all melted, by how much would sea levels rise...is it not in excess of 70metres?

Oh wow! That will really cover Everest, you say?

Can you.prove that all mountains 4500 years ago were as high as they are today...given Geology clearly shows historical uplift which is actually consistent with biblical claims rather than contrary to it!

The Himalayas are rising at the rate of about 5 mm a year. If we ignore the rate at which they're simultaneously eroding, they'll rise a meter every 200 years, thus 5m every thousand years, thus 35m in seven thousand years. (That's a very generous amount of time. We have no reason to think any culture on earth in 5000 BCE could build the ark described in the bible story.)

So if you wish, deduct 35m from (r+e). You won't have scratched the problem ─ you'll still need a lot more that a billion cubic miles of extra water.

Where is it now?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Gentry has real evidence that disproves evolution and billions of years.

He doesn't.

Of course all evidence does that.

No.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

how do you explain oil and coal deposits globally that are clearly the result of sedimentary burial of plants and animals?

Plants and animals lived and died over eons, and their residue was converted to fossil fuel. You can find this on the Internet. Try this.

Why should there be a genetic bottleneck?

Because according to the myth, almost all terrestrial life died. Do you know what a genetic bottleneck is?

Explain climate change

People develop technology, science shows them the problem with generating greenhouse gases, and the people who make policy decisions choose profit over human wellbeing.

Can you.prove that all mountains 4500 years ago were as high as they are today.

We can prove that they weren't. Most were a few millimeters or centimeters higher or lower. Orogeny and mountain erosion are ongoing, dynamic processes.

Geology clearly shows historical uplift which is actually consistent with biblical claims rather than contrary to it!

The biblical mythicists knew nothing about uplift, and none of their stories suggest otherwise. Science is the creationist's enemy, not his friend, which is why so many disseminate creationist apologetics with specious, pseudoscientific arguments. Some flat out reject science, but many others feign respect for the method while misrepresenting it.

People have no idea because they look at what is visible above the surface of the water and not how deep our current oceans are today. This is a zero problem for YEC and those who believe in Noah's flood.

There's never a problem for those who believe by faith. They're divorced from evidence and reason. What can't be believed by faith?

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The biblical mythicists knew nothing about uplift, and none of their stories suggest otherwise

Really...like Genesis flood account...none of them? Who are the them you are talking about?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

“Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water."? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?” - Sam Harris

Sam Harris is an atheist and ive heard his dumbass arguments before. To claim christianity isnt logical is stupid...this is a religious forum...your point is?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Plants and animals lived and died over eons, and their residue was converted to fossil fuel. You can find this on the Internet. Try this.

National geographic are a great resource, however, thats a **** reference...its schoolkid stuff.

Try this...https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

The Significance of Oil Chemistry
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat.5 Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.6

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.7

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing.8 Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood.

 

[blü 2]

National geographic are a great resource, however, thats a **** reference...its schoolkid stuff.

Try this...https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

The Significance of Oil Chemistry
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat.5 Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.6

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.7

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing.8 Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood.

Where's that billion cubic miles of water you need to account for the Flood?

Where's that single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and dated to some time in the last (being generous) 7,000 years?

And where are those genetic bottlenecks, in every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the single geological flood layer above?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Where's that billion cubic miles of water you need to account for the Flood?

Where's that single geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and dated to some time in the last (being generous) 7,000 years?

And where are those genetic bottlenecks, in every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the single geological flood layer above?

Water is in the ocean...you need look no further...the oceans are up to 11km deep.

Genetic bottlenecks

A few studies of plant viruses have attempted to estimate the effect of bottlenecks by examining diversity in populations from systemically infected tissues (18, 40). In addition, a number of studies of animal and bacterial viruses have examined changes in the population structure after passage through artificial bottlenecks (4, 7, 32, 49), but naturally occurring bottlenecks have been poorly studied...​

​

there hasn't been any direct experimental evidence showing that naturally occurring bottlenecks play a role in the genetic structure of viral populations

Genetic Bottlenecks Reduce Population Variation in an Experimental RNA Virus Population

Genetic bottlenecks are stochastic events that limit genetic variation in a population and result in founding populations that can lead to genetic drift. Evidence of past genetic bottlenecks in numerous biological systems, from mammals to viruses, has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

​

Btw...the study referenced used viruses in experiments...I have a theory about viruses...pre fall of man, I don't think they did what they do post Eden and post flood.​

Now focusing on important stuff...fossil fuels ...

​

The amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils vary from traces to 0.04% (or 400 parts per million).10 Experiments have produced a concentration of 0.5% porphyrin (of the type found in crude oils) from plant material in just one day,11 so it doesn’t take millions of years to produce the small amounts of porphyrins found in crude oils. Indeed, a crude oil porphyrin can be made from plant chlorophyll in less than 12 hours​

​

it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days The Origin of Oil​

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

National geographic are a great resource, however, thats a **** reference...its schoolkid stuff.

Try this...https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

The Significance of Oil Chemistry
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat.5 Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.6

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.7

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing.8 Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood.

Answers in genesis is a religious organization that starts with an assumed conclusion and then misrepresents science to try and pretend to support said assumed conclusion. They also require all their members and authors to sign a "statement of faith" where they pretty much promise that no amount of evidence will sway them from their assumed conclusion. Essentially this means that they are committed to intellectual dishonesty and unscientific reasoning.

Try a scientific source.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Answers in genesis is a religious organization that starts with an assumed conclusion and then misrepresents science to try and pretend to support said assumed conclusion. They also require all their members and authors to sign a "statement of faith" where they pretty much promise that no amount of evidence will sway them from their assumed conclusion. Essentially this means that they are committed to intellectual dishonesty and unscientific reasoning.

Try a scientific source.

Answers in Genesis is a vlid a scientific organization.
Evolutionists and billions of years organizations are religious that start with an assumed conclusions and then misrepresent science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Answers in Genesis is a vlid a scientific organization.

It is not.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is not.

Sure it is.
What makes you think other than that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure it is.
What makes you think other than that?

They don't follow the scientific method
They don't do research
They don't publish in scientific channels
They have satement of faith in which they promise to assume as fact a literal reading of the bible:

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

That's about as unscientific as it gets.
It also makes everything else they do completely irrelevant, because when you start by saying "here's what I'm going to believe and nothing will change my mind", what's the point even of trying to find evidence about anything? It's not like it's going to make you change your mind if the evidence doesn't fit the story.

So yeah. Anything but a "scientific organization". To think / believe otherwise, is to be either extremely intellectually dishonest OR completely oblivious to what science is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Paul did not say he lied

Paul, like Luther after him, presented a hypothetical in the form of a question, each asking rhetorical questions - statements in the form of a question that seek and require no answer. Here are their comments again. Luther paraphrases Paul, who is his apparent source for his own similar opinion. Luther goes further says the quiet part out loud, however.:

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

you need to read the passage in context.

I linked to the context, which did not contradict the apparent meaning of the citation removed from that context.

Answers in Genesis is a vlid a scientific organization.

I explained that I take nothing from creationist sources and gave good reasons for that. They're dishonest. They lie for Jesus just as Paul and Luther suggested they do. The following applies to AiG as well:

"And your guy Genty is yet another in an endless succession of people with those values, methods, and agenda, which is to say anything that might promote their incorrect, faith-based beliefs. People interested in truth - different agenda - are nothing like that - different values and methods - and have no interest in what such people say."

Evolutionists and billions of years organizations are religious that start with an assumed conclusions and then misrepresent science.

This is off by 180 degrees. You've described creationist apologetics there.

Who are the them you are talking about?

The people that wrote the words that became scripture.

Sam Harris is an atheist and ive heard his dumbass arguments before.

But you didn't even attempt to refute it. He's saying that presenting evidence and reason to people who don't decide what's true about the world using them is pointless, and look at your reaction to that.

To claim christianity isnt logical is stupid

Believing unfalsifiable claims is illogical. You won't rebut that, either, because you can't. Correct statements cannot be falsified.

Try this...https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oil/

The Significance of Oil Chemistry
It is very significant that porphyrin molecules break apart rapidly in the presence of oxygen and heat.5 Therefore, the fact that porphyrins are still present in crude oils today must mean that the petroleum source rocks and the plant (and animal) fossils in them had to have been kept from the presence of oxygen when they were deposited and buried. There are two ways this could have been achieved:

1. The sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxygen deficient (or reducing) conditions.6

2. The sedimentary rocks were deposited so rapidly that no oxygen could destroy the porphyrins in the plant and animal fossils.7

However, even where sedimentation is relatively rapid by today’s standards, such as in river deltas in coastal zones, conditions are still oxidizing.8 Thus, to preserve organic matter containing porphyrins requires its slower degradation in the absence of oxygen, such as in the Black Sea today.9 But such environments are too rare to explain the presence of porphyrins in all the many petroleum deposits found around the world. The only consistent explanation is the catastrophic sedimentation that occurred during the worldwide Genesis Flood.

I'll tell you the same thing that I just told the other poster and which I previously explained at the bottom of this recent post. I don't take scientific arguments form sources whose agenda is to promote religious beliefs by any means deemed effective, which includes specious, pseudoscientific argumentation.

There is nothing of value that can be found only in such sites, which develop none of the science they cite in their arguments. If what they write is valid, it will be written elsewhere in a suitable source that shares humanist values and the pursuit and dissemination of truth as defined there, as defined for academia, as defined for scientific peer review, and as defined for courtroom trials.

If you can't find a mutually acceptable source for your scientific arguments in support of creationism, it's because the arguments aren't scientific.

Water is in the ocean...you need look no further...the oceans are up to 11km deep.

You must know by now that there is not enough water on earth to submerge all of its mountains. If there were, they'd be underwater now as would the plains and beaches. Here's the math for those interested. It's from a post I wrote many years ago, and some of the links (items [7] and [8] below) are no longer valid, but the factual claims can be confirmed elsewhere with a Google search:

What volume of water must be added to the earth to flood all of its land? We do that by comparing the volume of the unflooded earth to the volume of the earth with ocean levels raised to above the highest mountain, Mt. Everest, which stands about five-and-a-half miles high.

[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius

[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)

[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3

[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet) http://www.bharatonline.com/nepal/mount-everest/everest-height.html

[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]

[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest.

[7] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans?

[8] The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall (30 ft/hr*) everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and **would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot

*[Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once, or twice as much over half of the earth at once. Imagine a shower filling up a three-story building in an hour.]

**[If you added another 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water - in excess of a quadrupling of the total - the salinity of the oceans would fall to about 22.4% of its present level, killing virtually all marine life]

 

[Left Coast]

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

There is no relevant missing context. You could reproduce the entire chapter, and it wouldn't change the meaning of that sentence, which is what your criticism implies. The prime example is changing, "The fools says in his heart that there is no god" to "There is no god." The missing words show that the writer meant the opposite of what the words out of context imply the writer meant. That's not the case here. The missing context merely amplifies the point without otherwise changing it. Paul asks a rhetorical question. Nowhere does he call such lying immoral. He justifies it by noting that it is human nature. And Luther obviously didn't think that such lying was immoral just like today's creationist apologists like the one that fooled you about human evolution. He lied to you, and you believed him. That's a two-millennium+ history and tradition supporting pious fraud ("lying for Jesus").

I hate to agree with the creationist here, but your reading of Romans 3 is off. It's obvious in context that Paul is not justifying deceit - in verse 8 he explicitly says that's not the point that should be drawn from his reasoning:

"Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!"

So as much as young earth creationists may cling to fallacious or even deceptive arguments in some cases, they can't claim Paul gives them an excuse to do so.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Answers in genesis is a religious organization that starts with an assumed conclusion and then misrepresents science to try and pretend to support said assumed conclusion. They also require all their members and authors to sign a "statement of faith" where they pretty much promise that no amount of evidence will sway them from their assumed conclusion. Essentially this means that they are committed to intellectual dishonesty and unscientific reasoning.

You know the problem with your complaint there?

NO REFER3NCING!

If you wanna refute something scientific, use a reference as your words are meaningless without it.

Deal with the scientific observation I posted with alternative scientific study.

I'm fully aware of AIG statement regarding support for creation science. That is standard for any world view...we search for evidence in support of our world views. The difference with AIG compared with TEism in Christian circles...they find evidence that aligns with the philosophical writings of said world view, whereas TEism attempts to twist the biblical narrative to suit their world view by calling translator liars, claiming we cant know what the true bible interpretations are because we don't know the original language, calling apostles who support the Genesis account unscientific, and finally...claiming God was learning when he created Adam and Eve!

The point is, the Bible is Gods revelation of our origins, of Himself, of How sin enterred this world, of the plan of Salvation and redemption, to us. A God who is Lord of all that doesn't make mistakes, is not learning, and certainly doesn't tell porkies.
Our God is more than capable of explaining creation and the flood to a highly educated Egyptian Prince (Moses), in language Moses could understand.

So if God said to Moses, "I created the world in 7 x 24 hours days" (evenings and mornings) , then thats exactly what He did.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds

Sorry but this is ignoring the techtonic plate upheaval that is clearly described in the bible flood account.

The point is, if the oceans are deeper the the elevation of the landmass this is a nonissue. Add to that another 70metres of coverage from ice and its a nonissue. We know that mountains such as Everest were not anything like the current elevation due to uplifting...thats obvious.

So preflood...mountains weren't anything like what they are today and the landmass was significantly different. There is evidence that large areas of land were floating on water and of deep underground aquifers...which we find evidence of similar today in Australia for example.

I think you need to actually first study the bible account so you understand why your aegument is meaningless to YEC Christians.

Oh btw,

According to Harvard University study, the mean elevation of the Earth is -2440metres Earth's Constant Mean Elevation: Implication for Long-Term Sea Level and Controlled by Ocean Lithosphere Dynamics in a Pitman World

That's below sea level...so if the oceans are on average 2km deeper than the landmass is high your entire argument would be fundamentaly problematic!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know the problem with your complaint there?

NO REFER3NCING!

Statement of Faith

answersingenesis.org

I assumed you were aware of this.

I'm fully aware of AIG statement regarding support for creation science. That is standard for any world view...

It is not standard in science. In science, you don't get to decide in advance what the answers are. In science, you can't a priori dogmatically commit to any particular outcome.

we search for evidence in support of our world views.

In science, you actually mostly search evidence to disprove your views.
You also let the evidence tell you what the views should be, instead of deciding beforehand what the views are.

AiG's statement of faith is the complete. It's as unscientific as it gets. Lost before even starting the match.

Also, as I already said, no evidence will convince you that you are wrong - cfr the statement of faith.
The statement of faith makes evidence irrelevant. You have already decided what the answer is. And you won't change your mind if you can't support it with evidence or even uncover evidence of the contrary. You'll just handwave it away with nonsense akin to "satan planted false evidence".

It's just a bad joke.
And to try and pass such of as science is nothing short of insulting to science and reason.

The difference with AIG compared with TEism in Christian circles...they find evidence that aligns with the philosophical writings of said world view, whereas TEism attempts to twist the biblical narrative to suit their world view by calling translator liars, claiming we cant know what the true bible interpretations are because we don't know the original language, calling apostles who support the Genesis account unscientific, and finally...claiming God was learning when he created Adam and Eve!

The point is, the Bible is Gods revelation of our origins, of Himself, of How sin enterred this world, of the plan of Salvation and redemption, to us. A God who is Lord of all that doesn't make mistakes, is not learning, and certainly doesn't tell porkies.
Our God is more than capable of explaining creation and the flood to a highly educated Egyptian Prince (Moses), in language Moses could understand.

So if God said to Moses, "I created the world in 7 x 24 hours days" (evenings and mornings) , then thats exactly what He did.

And this is the kind of dogmatic nonsense one gets when starting with such a statement of faith.