Please! Your faith is showing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Skwim
Veteran Member
Really doesn't matter.
That's how it happens.
The "some" are previous theories.
"Geologists know that the canyon and the river had to have formed within the last 80 million years because this is when the sea was last present here. When the landscape was uplifted from this seabed, an initial river system developed and drained to the northeast, exactly opposite to the flow direction of the Colorado River today. The larger geologic setting of the American West at this time reveals that an Andean-type mountain range existed to the southwest of Grand Canyon near the modern-day cities of Las Vegas, Nevada; Kingman, Arizona; and Needles, California. This ancient range is where the ancestor of the Colorado River originated. As strange as this may sound, it is one of the few parts of the Colorado River story that all geologists agree upon.
A new theory published in 2011 contends that this ancient northeast river system carved the Grand Canyon as early as 70 million years ago. Using a technique that can tell how deeply buried the canyon's rocks were at specific time intervals, scientists determined that western Grand Canyon was cut to within a few hundred meters of its present depth 70 million years ago, while eastern Grand Canyon (where most visitors see the canyon) was the site of a gorge of similar proportions to the modern canyon, but cut into Mesozoic-age rocks that are now completely stripped away. This evidence flies in the face of many long held theories that the canyon is only about 6 million years old. The notion that the Grand Canyon could be old is not a completely new idea but the recent research uses more cutting-edge tools to arrive at this conclusion. Look for vigorous debate in the near future regarding this mind-blowing proposal."
source
.
A new theory published in 2011 contends that this ancient northeast river system carved the Grand Canyon as early as 70 million years ago. Using a technique that can tell how deeply buried the canyon's rocks were at specific time intervals, scientists determined that western Grand Canyon was cut to within a few hundred meters of its present depth 70 million years ago, while eastern Grand Canyon (where most visitors see the canyon) was the site of a gorge of similar proportions to the modern canyon, but cut into Mesozoic-age rocks that are now completely stripped away. This evidence flies in the face of many long held theories that the canyon is only about 6 million years old. The notion that the Grand Canyon could be old is not a completely new idea but the recent research uses more cutting-edge tools to arrive at this conclusion. Look for vigorous debate in the near future regarding this mind-blowing proposal."
source
.
Seriously?! You're going to bring up this old, extensively debunked trope?
Where are you getting these arguments? You need to update your sources.
OMG, Where do you get these "evidences?" The Pleistocene extinctions? Permafrost?
They're absurd. They fly in the face of everything we know about these phenomena. And when, exactly, do you propose all this happened? How are you dating these?
Where are your facts? Folklore?
Science is entirely indifferent to god. It follows evidence. If evidence of a god meddling in things exists, science would be glad to consider it.
So far no such evidence exists.
Yeah, so you keep saying.
If that is true — that evolutionary mechanisms currently understood, explain the complexity we see — then there’d be no push for finding a New Synthesis.
Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine
As I say, it’s based on a house of cards.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No Canyons were formed by the flood. Any examples that you can think of have been refuted a thousand times over. But then you know that. All of your claims have been refuted time and time again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, an article that is beyond your understanding in no way shows that. If you really want to learn people will help you here. if you want to make yourself look foolish just keep doing what you have been doing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Naughty naughty, Ninth Commandment violation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Amazing, by abusing the rating system where I apparently have overrated @Hockeycowboy 's intelligence he uses the rating system to tell us that he is not all that bright.
@Subduction Zone , all these words and no references...it’s getting very tiresome.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why do you need references? What is beyond your understanding? You seem to have forgotten already that you linked an article that was beyond your understanding.
Ask questions properly and politely and they will be answered.
What does science have to do with god? Science goes where the evidence points, god or no god, and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood.
You seem to think there is some massive, worldwide conspiracy among hundreds of different scientific disciplines and millions of scientists to undermine religion and discredit god.
Did you read the article you linked to?
"The researchers don’t argue that the Modern Synthesis is wrong — just that it doesn’t capture the full richness of evolution."
No-one is questioning the fact of evolution. Science is always pushing the boundaries; always evolving. Unlike religion, science seeks and welcomes new evidence, and is always growing.
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You assume that there is a creator - apparently, you assume that the one referred to in the bible is it.
How do you know that?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Non sequitur.
How does any of that verify the Noah flood myth?
Also - weird - when I googled the name, I got a chemist:
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/7517332_Seok-Won_Hong
tas8831
Well-Known Member
No, it isn't.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Me too. He tried to claim the dash makes a difference. And he may be correct for once. There are still endless problems with his claim.
He says that the people that site the article got the name wrong
. When I Google searched the author in the past I used the name from the article that he posted. It is always easier to highlight and Google the name than to type it in by hand. If he got the name wrong he is at least partly to blame. So just for fun let's give him that one.He claims that he is some sort of leader in the field, but when I searched the articles that he contributed in he was never listed as the primary author, or even the secondary one. He was third or lower in all of the examples I found. There was also into about the other authors but none about him. That does not sound like a person that is well respected at all.
And then what sinks that article is that it was written as if it were a peer reviewed article, but it was never published in a well respected professional journal. That tells us that it was an attempt to mislead,not to instruct.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Me too. He tried to claim the dash makes a difference. And he may be correct for once. There are still endless problems with his claim.
He says that the people that site the article got the name wrong
He claims that he is some sort of leader in the field, but when I searched the articles that he contributed in he was never listed as the primary author, or even the secondary one. He was third or lower in all of the examples I found. There was also into about the other authors but none about him. That does not sound like a person that is well respected at all.
And then what sinks that article is that it was written as if it were a peer reviewed article, but it was never published in a well respected professional journal. That tells us that it was an attempt to mislead,not to instruct.
And odd that all of those other articles are apparently legitimate, yet mysteriously he writes one pro-bible, pro-Noah's ark paper... and suddenly his status is elevated from perhaps hard-working nobody to highly credentialed superstar incapable of being wrong.
And so what if he is right - that a box with scaled-down dimensions supposedly matching those of this ark showing that it could have floated does not by any means indicate that the flood really happened, that the animals were brought from afar to this ark, etc.
Sort of like claiming that I drive the fastest car in the world, and supporting that by showing a publication demonstrating that wheels roll.