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.

[AdamjEdgar]

im going to put this in really simple terms...as its too complicated for one individual here:

1. Secular cosmonogy says "the earth was once a waterworld"
2. The water has not gone anywhere
3. The current land elevation, which covers only 29% of the globe, was produced by techtonic plate movement (uplift, subduction etc) and averages at -21400m....thats 2.4km BELOW current sea level!
4. The major difference between secularism and Creationism here is when.
5.The Genesis creation story, and the flood are not in any way restricted by a shortage of water. That is a stupid assumption that has no evidence in support of it.
6. We have clear evidence from sedimentary deposits around the world that prove the earth has at some point in the past, been entirely covered by water...and likely catastrophic events have flooded every major continent of the globe since it was a waterworld. Everyone agrees on these facts.

The only difference between the views is not whether or not water covered the earth, but when it did.

We have no records outside of the bible that tell us anything about what the earth looked like prior to Noahs flood.

To continue dog barking trying to claim that we need 28 thousand feet of water to flood the earth above Mt Everest is bull****. You have absolutely zero proof of height of Everest prior to Noahs flood. The fact that we find fossils on mountains such as that one tells us that recently it was nothing like that height...which is contrary to your claim.

Id suggest you need to research "Qomolangma Limestone" which proves the theory of plate techtonics. Neither side disagree that this was how Everest was formed...and both sides must agree that once upond a time, Everest was near or under water when sea creatures died on it.

So all that is to be argued about is nothing to do with the stupid question "where did all the water come from". Thats an argument devoid of any intelligence! We are simply arguing about, when it happened. Young Earth Creationists say it happened catastophically and rapidly, uniformatrianism says "there is no God, "there are no such things as miracles", therefore it can only happen over huge periods of time given its current rate of techtonic activity.

 

[The Hammer]

im going to put this in really simple terms...as its too complicated for one individual here:

1. Secular cosmonogy says "the earth was once a waterworld"
2. The water has not gone anywhere
3. The current land elevation, which covers only 29% of the globe, was produced by techtonic plate movement (uplift, subduction etc) and averages at -21400m....thats 2.4km BELOW current sea level!
4. The major difference between secularism and Creationism here is when.
5.The Genesis creation story, and the flood are not in any way restricted by a shortage of water. That is a stupid assumption that has no evidence in support of it.
6. We have clear evidence from sedimentary deposits around the world that prove the earth has at some point in the past, been entirely covered by water...and likely catastrophic events have flooded every major continent of the globe since it was a waterworld. Everyone agrees on these facts.

The only difference between the views is not whether or not water covered the earth, but when it did.

We have no records outside of the bible that tell us anything about what the earth looked like prior to Noahs flood.

To continue dog barking trying to claim that we need 28 thousand feet of water to flood the earth above Mt Everest is bull****. You have absolutely zero proof of height of Everest prior to Noahs flood. The fact that we find fossils on mountains such as that one tells us that recently it was nothing like that height...which is contrary to your claim.

Id suggest you need to research "Qomolangma Limestone" which proves the theory of plate techtonics. Neither side disagree that this was how Everest was formed...and both sides must agree that once upond a time, Everest was near or under water when sea creatures died on it.

So all that is to be argued about is nothing to do with the stupid question "where did all the water come from". Thats an argument devoid of any intelligence! We are simply arguing about, when it happened. Young Earth Creationists say it happened catastophically and rapidly, uniformatrianism says "there is no God, "there are no such things as miracles", therefore it can only happen over huge periods of time given its current rate of techtonic activity.

Man what a terribly ignorant argument.

And no, I won't entertain you and answer/ask/clarify. Stupid games for stupid people.

 

[blü 2]

Again, the origins of the earth are almost identical... secular cosmonogy believes that this planet was once a waterworld.

It's one hypothesis backed by reasoned argument, yes. It's too soon to call it orthodoxy, though.

The point you seem to be missing is that it's about the earth as it existed shortly after it formed 4.5 billion years ago ─ NOT five thousand years ago but about 900,000 sets of five thousand years ago.

The geological evidence is overwhelming that the world has not been all under water at any time since very early on, if at all.

Our ancestors the great apes appear in the fossil record about 30m years ago. Genus Homo appears about 2.5m years ago. "Y-Chromosomal Adam" ─ the male ancestor we humans all have in common ─ is maybe 250,000 years ago with a wide margin of error, and "Mitochondrial Eve" ─ the female ancestor we all have in common ─ is maybe 150,000 years ago, again with a wide margin of error.

And you still haven't told me
─ what "the fountains of the deep" are, or
─ where modern examples of them may be found, or
─ where that missing billion cubic miles of water is, or
─ where that missing universal geological flood layer in the past five thousand years or so is, or
─ where all those genetic bottlenecks in every species of land animal are, all dating to the same date as the flood layer

and yet, if you're right, ALL those things MUST be there.

But they're not, as you seem to acknowledge by never addressing them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It's one hypothesis backed by reasoned argument, yes. It's too soon to call it orthodoxy, though.

The point you seem to be missing is that it's about the earth as it existed shortly after it formed 4.5 billion years ago ─ NOT five thousand years ago but about 900,000 sets of five thousand years ago.

The geological evidence is overwhelming that the world has not been all under water at any time since very early on, if at all.

Our ancestors the great apes appear in the fossil record about 30m years ago. Genus Homo appears about 2.5m years ago. "Y-Chromosomal Adam" ─ the male ancestor we humans all have in common ─ is maybe 250,000 years ago with a wide margin of error, and "Mitochondrial Eve" ─ the female ancestor we all have in common ─ is maybe 150,000 years ago, again with a wide margin of error.

And you still haven't told me
─ what "the fountains of the deep" are, or
─ where modern examples of them may be found, or
─ where that missing billion cubic miles of water is, or
─ where that missing universal geological flood layer in the past five thousand years or so is, or
─ where all those genetic bottlenecks in every species of land animal are, all dating to the same date as the flood layer

and yet, if you're right, ALL those things MUST be there.

But they're not, as you seem to acknowledge by never addressing them.

All just circular reasoning on your part.
And the fossil bearing layers around the world are the proof of the worldwide flood.
The earth’s crust is broken into plates because the fountains of the deep were broken up.
The mountains were lower before the flood. To drain off the water, the mountains were raised and the ocean depths lowered.

 

[Esteban X]

All just circular reasoning on your part.
And the fossil bearing layers around the world are the proof of the worldwide flood.
The earth’s crust is broken into plates because the fountains of the deep were broken up.
The mountains were lower before the flood. To drain off the water, the mountains were raised and the ocean depths lowered.

Ho Hum.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

It's one hypothesis backed by reasoned argument, yes. It's too soon to call it orthodoxy, though.

The point you seem to be missing is that it's about the earth as it existed shortly after it formed 4.5 billion years ago ─ NOT five thousand years ago but about 900,000 sets of five thousand years ago.

The geological evidence is overwhelming that the world has not been all under water at any time since very early on, if at all.

according to your world view that is the case, however, it is not the case according to my world view.

BTW, the evidence is an interpretation and is not necessarily fuly supportive of your view.

For example.:

1. the vast majority of fossils for ancestors of humans and apes are cast copies and few actual anthropolgists have been given access to view the originals

2. You might think it isnt necessary, perhaps you recall "Pittown man"? Turns out that the castings of this supposed ancestor appeared legit, however, when finally the original was examined, it only then that close examination found that the teeth had been filed, the skull was that of an Orangutan and jaw bone of human.

This isnt the only example where this kind of thing has happened.

3. Also, we now know Neanderthals inbred with early humans...so they lived at the same time.

4. We also know that certain features of supposed ancestors deny any possibility of common lineage...apes dont have nose bridges, their big toe is point sideways for grabbing, and hip sockets are completely different to ours. Limb length is another issue where we differ completely to apes and monkeys.

5. I will check up on this last one, however, am i correct that the brain area of ancient humans is larger than for apes? There doesnt appear to be any ape with a large enough cranial volume...ive read somewhere that in humans its almost 300 % larger thaqn that of apes. (apes=400cm3 vs humans=1400cm3)

The claim that we share 97% of dna with apes is also a misleading lie. Its actually only about 80% and the things we have in common in dna simply relate to things like eyes, ears, arms and legs...thats perfectly acceptable for Creationist world view...there is no issue here.

I am reading a book which has some devastating facts against the secular human ancestory claims.

Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow

 

[blü 2]

according to your world view that is the case, however, it is not the case according to my world view.

Truth, in my view, is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. By that standard, the world can be shown to be some 4.5 billion years old.

How do you define truth? Grateful if you don't omit to answer that. since we're comparing world views.

And the justification for science is not that it's perfect, or infalllible, or capable of absolute statements, but that it's always a work in progress driven by the desire to be able to make accurate statements about reality, and employing empiricism and induction in reaching and expressing its conclusions. AND that by so doing, it works ─ puts rovers on Mars, makes Covid vaccines and vaccinates billions of people in under two years, makes our conversation possible, electric vehicles possible, on and on.

Article XI of the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978) reads,

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.​

​

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.​

Is that your view? It has a great many problems. One is that the bible nowhere makes any claim of that kind, so it's an assertion externally imposed by particular humans. Another is that the bible has many manifest errors, of cosmology, physics, maths, history, and so on ─ what's the point of having to defend absurd propositions such as that Mt Everest was 20 feet under water in the last five thousand years? And that the earth is flat and the sky is a hard dome you can walk on, to which the stars are attached such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? Why not simplify life by accepting that the cosmology, physics, historiography of the bible are exactly what we'd expect, reflecting the understandings of the writers' times and places?

And if the science &c of the bible is taken to be correct, why is it correct in 2024 but false in the year 1200, and in 1900? It seems certain that the cosmology of 2050 will be different to the cosmology of 2024, so if the bible is correct by the standards of today, it was and will be wrong by the standards of any other era, no?

The evidence is an interpretation and is not necessarily fuly supportive of your view.

For example.:

1. the vast majority of fossils for ancestors of humans and apes are cast copies and few actual anthropolgists have been given access to view the originals

Therefore?

2. You might think it isnt necessary, perhaps you recall "Pittown man"? Turns out that the castings of this supposed ancestor appeared legit, however, when finally the original was examined, it only then that close examination found that the teeth had been filed, the skull was that of an Orangutan and jaw bone of human.

This isnt the only example where this kind of thing has happened.

No, But of course it wasn't professionals from religion that discovered that Piltdown Man was a fake. It was scientists. Science, unlike religion, commonly has tests that can sort out the real from the fakes, together with an ethic and with systems that are routinely skeptical of all results and seek to confirm and reconfirm them.

3. Also, we now know Neanderthals inbred with early humans...so they lived at the same time.

And again, it was scientists, not people from the religion industry, who found that out.

5. I will check up on this last one, however, am i correct that the brain area of ancient humans is larger than for apes? There doesnt appear to be any ape with a large enough cranial volume...ive read somewhere that in humans its almost 300 % larger than that of apes. (apes=400cm3 vs humans=1400cm3)

So different kinds of great apes have physical differences, and humans are fairly easy to distinguish from chimps or gorillas or orangutans as a rule. That's hardly news, is it?

The claim that we share 97% of dna with apes is also a misleading lie. Its actually only about 80% and the things we have in common in dna simply relate to things like eyes, ears, arms and legs...thats perfectly acceptable for Creationist world view...there is no issue here.

Whatever the correct figure turns out to be, it will have been discovered by scientists, not religionists as such.


Oh, and one last thing ─ Paul mentions the view, originating, so I read, amongst Alexandrian Jews late in the second century BCE, that Adam and Eve sinned and brought about the Fall of Man. As you know, it didn't catch on until around 400 CE Augustine of Hippo made it popular. Trouble is, the Garden story in the bible never mentions sin, or the fall, or death entering the world, or spiritual death, or anything of that kind. Instead God clearly states [his] ONLY reasons for expelling Adam and Eve at Genesis 3:22-23 ─ towit to protect [his] own position.

And of course if the bible is infallible then sin can't be inheritable ─ there can't be such a thing as original sin ─ as Ezekiel 18, not least at verse 20, makes plain,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there is no God, then both the atheist and Christian end up the same (so the Christian loses nothing)

Actually, the christian loses his one and only life by wasting it on his knees with his hands clasped together praying to a god that doesn't exist.

If there is a God, then the Christian wins and the atheist loses.

Except, off course, when it turns out to be one of the thousands of gods that christian doesn't believe in.

So the point is, in either of the above inevitable outcomes, the atheist loses!

Disagree.

Surely you have the intellectual capacity to recognise that fact?

I have the intellectual capacity to see the stupidity of pascal's wager.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We know for a fact that techtonic plate movement has caused the uplift in regions like the Himalayas (as just one example)

....at a rate of a few mm's per year. Your absurd scenario would require it to happen at a rate that would be so cataclysmic that literally nothing living would survive. planet.

..so the scientific observations already supports the claim.

They really, really, really, ... don't.

If we add to that the fact that if all the ice melted on the earth, it would raise current sea levels by another 70 metres...

Which would be peanuts compared to the elevation of the himalaya's, the alps, etc.

please grow a brain

Projecting much?

and do some research

What a bad joke....

instead of raising dimwitted wives tails regarding the idiotic question "where did all the water come from?" The only difference between your view and mine on this issue is the timing.

Yes, timing. You require processes that took 100s of millions of years to happen within a single year. And you don't seem to have a clue concerning the physical impossibility thereof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because God made free will creatures and Satan is very intelligent and deceives many.

Perhaps Satan is so intelligent that he succeeded to deceive a genius like you....

How would you know?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

according to your world view that is the case,

No. According to the evidence.

however, it is not the case according to my world view.

Your "world view" being your a priori religious beliefs.

Why should we care?
I care about evidence. Not about beliefs or "worldviews".

BTW, the evidence is an interpretation and is not necessarily fuly supportive of your view.

False. Objective evidence is independently testable.

For example.:

1. the vast majority of fossils for ancestors of humans and apes are cast copies and few actual anthropolgists have been given access to view the originals

So?

2. You might think it isnt necessary, perhaps you recall "Pittown man"?

Yes. It was a hoax that was never taken seriously by mainstream science. And the only reason you know it was a hoax, is because the few mainstream scientists that cared enough demonstrated it was a hoax. Not YECs. They wouldn't even know how to distinguish a hoax from an actual fossil. They lack the knowledge to do so.
What about the 100s of thousands of non-hoax fossils? You want to all throw them out because of this one hoax?

This isnt the only example where this kind of thing has happened.

And everytime, it were scientists who exposed the hoax for what they were.
The joke's on you also... as Piltdown man would have turned evolution of humans on its head were it accurate.
But it wasn't accurate, so it didn't.

So what's your point?

3. Also, we now know Neanderthals inbred with early humans...so they lived at the same time.

Yes. So?

4. We also know that certain features of supposed ancestors deny any possibility of common lineage...apes dont have nose bridges, their big toe is point sideways for grabbing, and hip sockets are completely different to ours. Limb length is another issue where we differ completely to apes and monkeys.

How does that deny common lineage?

5. I will check up on this last one, however, am i correct that the brain area of ancient humans is larger than for apes? There doesnt appear to be any ape with a large enough cranial volume...ive read somewhere that in humans its almost 300 % larger thaqn that of apes. (apes=400cm3 vs humans=1400cm3)

First, humans ARE apes.
Secondly:

The claim that we share 97% of dna with apes is also a misleading lie.

It is not.

Its actually only about 80% and the things we have in common in dna simply relate to things like eyes, ears, arms and legs...thats perfectly acceptable for Creationist world view...there is no issue here.

Utterly false.

Also, the genetic matches (not just between apes, but between ALL living things) fall into a nested hierarchy. A family tree. Exactly the pattern expected if we share ancestors. This also includes "broken" genes. Like the GULO gene. Broken in the exact same way in all great apes.
This also includes ERV's, which are essentially inheritable genetic scars; left overs from viral infections that inserted themselves into the genome creating an ERV which then gets past on to off spring. Exact matching ERV's between species also fall into the nested hierarchy. A family tree. Again exactly the pattern expected if we share ancestors.

This nested hierarchy is found everywhere from every angle in multiple independent lines of evidence. Comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, comparison of entire genomes, comparison of specific genetic sequences, comparison of specific genes, of specific ERV's or any other genetic marker. ALL of it falls into the same nested hierarchy. The only pattern evolution could result in (and the very last pattern we would expect from seperate creation events). And in the few instances where it doesn't fall into such a hierarchy, it fits KNOW mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and alike.


Clearly you should read up a bit. You don't seem to have a clue.

I am reading a book which has some devastating facts against the secular human ancestory claims.

Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow

Ow, right... a dude with a degree in theology and association with a christian diploma mill. Yes, let's all learn biology from a guy with no publications or research in the field and who's utterly religiously biased and a dogmatic creationist believer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say 70 metre of additional water from ice melt is going to solve any problem. The entire problem you attempt to raise is a construct of your own doing...not mine!

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.​

​

While modern Earth’s surface is about 70 percent water-covered, the new research indicates that our planet was a true ocean world some 3 billion years ago. At this point, only scattered archipelagos breached our global ocean’s briny surface. That is, if any land existed at all.​

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" without any dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was completely covered in water. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

www.astronomy.com

Limited Archaean continental emergence reflected in an early Archaean 18O-enriched ocean - Nature Geoscience

The water cycle was in two different steady states, before and after continental emergence, as recorded in the decreasing oxygen isotope values of seawater since the Archaean, according to an inverse geochemical model of the oceanic crustal record.

www.nature.com

Again let me simplify it for you...

1. both world views agree that plate techtonics are responsible for mountain range uplift...so once upon a time, Everest was not 8km high! Your entire claim about the need for billions of cubic metres of aditional water is mute!

2. The difference essentially is only about when it happened, not how.

You do not seem to know how science works. Yes, Mt. Everest was not always at its current height. But we know its history and approximate age. It has been a very high mountain for millions of years.

Oh, and it's "moo" not mute

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You do not seem to know how science works. Yes, Mt. Everest was not always at its current height. But we know its history and approximate age. It has been a very high mountain for millions of years.

Oh, and it's "moo" not mute

History only goes back 1000s of years. So what are you basing the phrase "for millions of years" on?

 

[Astrophile]

Yet the Bible says it hangs on nothing.

So did the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 610-546 BC), who lived at about the same time that the book of Job was written. Perhaps Anaximander and the author of Job got their information from the same source (Babylonian astronomers?). In any case, the Earth does not hang on nothing; it is in orbit around the Sun. Anaximander didn't know that, and the Bible doesn't say so either.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So did the Greek philosopher Anaximander (ca. 610-546 BC), who lived at about the same time that the book of Job was written. Perhaps Anaximander and the author of Job got their information from the same source (Babylonian astronomers?). In any case, the Earth does not hang on nothing; it is in orbit around the Sun. Anaximander didn't know that, and the Bible doesn't say so either.

Job probably lived about 2000 BC and you can determine that he was alive around the time was called by God.

 

[Esteban X]

Job probably lived about 2000 BC and you can determine that he was alive around the time was called by God.

If he existed at all. The Book of Job was most likely written in the 6th century BCE, probably based on an existing figure of folklore.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If he existed at all. The Book of Job was most likely written in the 6th century BCE, probably based on an existing figure of folklore.

No. It was written at the time of Abraham from Ur and Job from Uz.
Job does not mention Abraham at all so Job probably lived at around the same time maybe born before Abraham. That puts Jib at about 2000 BC.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. It was written at the time of Abraham from Ur and Job from Uz.
Job does not mention Abraham at all so Job probably lived at around the same time maybe born before Abraham. That puts Jib at about 2000 BC.

But did Job defeat the Hydra like Hercules did?
I don't think so!

Checkmate, christian!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But did Job defeat the Hydra like Hercules did?
I don't think so!

Checkmate, christian!

No Job was not Hercules who never existed.

 

[Esteban X]

No Job was not Hercules who never existed.

Neither did Job, where's your proof? The Book Job is a claim, not proof.