young earth Creationism .. again

[pimpdave]

I enjoyed Expelled, Ben Stein's documentary about Intelligent Design and stuff.

Also, The X-Files is a cool show too.

[PLAYER57832]

Player: he's not listening. I know this is an important question to you (and to everyone). But Lionz is either a troll (which I decided many many posts ago when he suggested tthat "maybe" the great pyramid was not built by humans as tomb but created by God at the moment he created the Earth, complete with a calendar of future events) or um, I can't think of an alternative.

Unless refusing to read repeated and rational responses to his multifarious questions equates in his creationist head with proof that ... um, (no, I can't even follow the fantasy logic).

You may be correct about the trolling bit.
As for the logic, the sad truth is that this IS often what passes for logic.

For a "short version", I suggest looking at the article "Darwin got it wrong and National Geographic, too". I critiqued it about, but it seems to encapsulate a lot of the errors that are perpetrated.

Player you have better things to do in rl than debate with this guy who's either a troll or incapable of following your logic. I know that this is a debate you need to address locally (and after seeing a notice outside a local church, maybe I need to debate this locally myself) .

About 30 years ago, I might have agreed. I thought this was a small movement that, once logic prevailed, would be easily dismissed. Instead, we now have a generation of adults who have never learned what you and I know of science, have been told that most of what science presents is "just lies", "based on faulty assumptions", etc. These people occupied roughly 30% of the Bush administration. I don't know the percentage of Obama's administration, but I doubt they have all left.

Although evolution is required in schools, the way it is taught and the depth to which it is taught varies heavily. In some areas, that little required "evolution is a theory" (and similar qualifiers, which are required in many, if not all, states) is just a footnote, acknowledged, but not emphasized. In other areas, it almost becomes the curriculum within the public schools. However, that this battle seems to have died down is deceptive. Even while science is being eroded in the public school the homeschooling movement and creation of "church" schools is growing. There are many reasons. It's not just creationism. Many parents may send their kids to such a school because of homosexuality, violence, etc. However, so many of the "wonderful helps" in any community and non the net are tied to young earth creationism, it is very hard for someone not highly schooled in science to see there is a real problem.

And, that is the biggest point I want to make. This "debate" is far less about actually teaching a belief than about simply throwing mud on standard, accepted science.

But please stop trying to address Lionz's "points". At least until he is actually confident enough to present you with, well, anything, without "I may have misquoted", or "I may not have this right", or "perhaps",

I had already decided to pare down the things to which I respond quite a bit. No more repeats, etc. And yes, if his debate does not improve.. there is no point.

However, I do feel I should respond to this last lengthy post. Whether I add more will depend on if he can narrow down his questions and begin offering something like real proof.

[PLAYER57832]

Lionz. A common theme here is "what constitutes proof". Young earthers are taught that science has no real and true firm foundation, that ultimately, it is all based on "assumptions". It is easy to make that claim. Science has advance so far, so quickly that it makes anyone's head spin to try and follow it. We long ago passed the point where any one person can possibly understand "all of science". Its just way, way too vast. One cannot even understand "geology" or "biology" in full. Again, they are too vast. Even somewhat "narrow" fields of Paleontology is too vast for any one person to truly comprehend. One can understand a particular group, maybe a few groups and/or some broader concepts. (the broad is critical).

In many of these cases, I am not, myself qualified to properly address your questions. I admit this, I have repeated it many times. I can refer to websites, try to track down information, sometimes information I learned a long time ago (not just in school, I have visited many of the places you show pictured), but frankly, I don't see a lot of point in "battling websites".

Instead, I have tried to take one or two items and show you how to track down the real proof. This is important. See, the real truth is that the proof IS out there. However, most people, whether they accept evolution or don't, are simply too lazy or just lack the time (the time involved is pretty immense, so I don't think mere "laziness" is really a fair charge... I have spent over 10 hours just dealing with your posts and have not fully posted all the line of proofs). Also, some of the stuff, a lot of the early documentation backing various techniques is found in paper and not on the web. In fact, even in this advanced day and age, science tends to lag. Perhaps journals should all be posted on the web. It might be nice. However, science organizations usually don't have the funds or staff needed.

Young earth creationists, to contrast, can come up with new theories every day. I have semi-tracked the Institute for Creation Research for some time. I find completely new articles with basically new claims every few days. It takes little time for them to jot out a quick "hey, folks, here is another ludicrous claim by scientists" [heh, heh,]" .. we know better!" To counter this takes time. In many cases, this is not that hard, because if you really look at the articles they don't actually make real claims, its just "hey folks, how idiotic is this idea!". They simply disparage any science claim they wish, without worrying about evidence or backing. (just deny any evidence or proof exists! EASY!).

However, to prove the evolutionist case or to counter the few real claims that the Institute might make, requires a lot of time. Science has high standards. You don't say x is so unless it can be proven. Even that is something used and abused by young earth creationists. Because there are few cases where scientist really will step out and say "we know this for sure", young earthers exploit the uncertainty and pretend that "some wiggle room here" means "nobody knows anything, so we can just insert any theory we please".

That example you gave of a candle is classic, as was your reponse. You simply deny that scientist really take that time, make that effort and use the techniques of verification I offered. I can tell you until I am blue in the face that the proof is there, but as long as you trust the young earth sites and absolutely refuse to even truly investigate the science.. I won't convince you. It comes down to "battling websites". And, on the surface, they can, to someone who doesn't know any better, they can appear "equal".

I challenge you, have challenged you, to go beyond those superficialities and truly follow the line of proof. Don't pick one of the "examples" young earthers try to pull out to show how all evidence is error and fraud. In most cases, those ARE examples of error and fraud! It was the scientists, not the young earth group, that found this out! Pick something that is said to be proven. Pick anything. Look into the real scientific literature backing Carbon-14 dating, just to pick one. OR look into the dating of a particular layer of rock. BUT, in the latter case, note that I don't mean go until you find someone using an index fossil or comparison to a rockform elsewhere. I mean go past that, look until you find why that other landform is considered a firm date or firm comparison point. And then, if that is based on another index, follow THAT track. Eventually, you will get to the real and true proof.

See, looking at the surface, the use of an index fossil to date a particular rock and saying "that is how science is done" is "cheating". You have to understand how and why that fossil became an index fossil AND you have to look at real analysis of the limitations of that designation. In almost all cases, the results are couched in some tentative terms. There is room for some error. BUT, if you also look at the limits to that error, it does not extend to allow any possibility of a young earth. Not whan you really and truly consider ALL the evidence.

But, I have little hope that you or most other young earth creationists will do this.

I have met more than a few college students who thought they "knew" science, who thought it would be easy to go out and "educate" these scientists. They failed. They ALL failed. And, the Institute for Creation Science has since been discouraging students from truly doing those investigations.

So.. balance these two ideas. Science encourages all dissent, encourages investigation, questions, is very slow to accept anything as "proof". Even so, questions are allowed, its just that people don't have time to reprove every day to every one who wishes to challenge the idea that yes, the Earth really IS round. So, too, most scientist simply dismiss ideas that the Earth could possibly be 6000 (or 12,000 or even 200,000 years old). It is not that folks aren't allowed to question, it is that the proof that exists is so firm, is so real, has been studied and analyzed so much that most people just cannot be bothered to go back and prove it all again. The proof for evolution is not as firm as the proof that the earth is not flat. However, the proof that the Earth is older than 6000 years IS very much that firm.

[Lionz]

Jones,

Can you define troll? Is a troll not basically someone who jumps into forum topics simply to cause conflict? What are you doing and who's speaking up for young earth creationism here if not me?

And is there something specific said by Player in here that I have not adequately addressed?

PLAYER,

How about you and I try to have a more peaceful tone with one another? What's there to get angry about really?

If you claims that the times and other evidence do not support that the Channeled Scablands were formed by Noah's flood, then can you provide evidence for that? What suggests the Channeled Scabland's were formed over 5,000 years ago? How about some specific examples if you have some?

You claim that you have pointed out more than a few things I am stating that are just wrong beginning with assumptions and a definition of carbon 14 dating? When have you taught me about carbon 14 dating? You suggested you thought carbon 14 dating was not a radiometic dating technique a couple of weeks or so ago maybe. And what have you taught me about how rocks and fossils are dated? You said this backing me up on 4/12 perhaps...

For one thing, carbon 14 dating is mostly used for more recent archeological dating. In fossils, the carbon has usually long since been replaced with other minerals (this is not necessarily always true, but often). The fossils I studied most are among the most ancient .. those of fish. It just is not a tool used. Instead, fossils are dated by looking at the rock layers where they are found. Once I got past my general education classes, I never heard about Carbon 14 again, though we did study fossils.

Carbon 14 is just not a tool used and instead fossils are dated by looking at rock layers where they are found you claim? And once you got past general education classes you never heard about Carbon 14 again? Geologic layers are used to determine when fossils date to and index fossils are used to determine how old geologic lateys are also perhaps. How about correct it where it's wrong if not?

What have you taught me about what an earthwide flood would have left on the earth? You have suggested there would be a uniform silt layer across the earth from one in error having to do with one or more assumption perhaps. If water mostly came from things now known as oceanic ridges, then what would it have left behind as far as silt across the earth?

You claim I refuse to consider evidence that is used to identify the Plesitocene? What is used to identify the Plesitocene?

You ask me which scientific assumptions are supposed to be faulty?

- Would assuming that earth randomly came together from a random distribution of dust particles not be a faulty assumption if He intelligently designed the earth and created it out of nothing?

- Would assuming that there has always been a constant amount of carbon 14 produced in the atmosphere not be a faulty assumption if the earth had a vastly different atmosphere and 30 times more plantlife on it just 5,000 years ago? Is there any radiometic dating technique that does not assume a starting number in something and assume there's been a constant rate of decay in something?

- Would assuming that there has not been an earthwide flood when studying the fossil record not be a faulty assumption if there has been an earthwide flood?

Want me to keep going? Whether or not I know anything is a faulty assumption comes down to definition maybe, but you don't have to know anything to try to attempt to avoid faulty assumptions perhaps. Maybe we should avoid assuming that He did not create earth out of nothing and we should avoid assuming that there was not an earthwide flood. Maybe we especially should avoid doing those if we are trying to determine if He did create the earth out of nothing and trying determine to determine if there was an earthwide flood in the first place.

What can Oxbow Lakes do to explain Monument Valley? Even if meandering rivers that no longer exist helped formed buttes, were there not apparently huge volumes of sediments that were once between buttes quite some distance from one another? If so, what removed the huge volumes of sediments between the buttes and where did the sediments go? You might feel that there is some wonderful secular explanation hidden from you personally right now, but geological explanations substitute vast time periods for evidence and mechanisms all too often perhaps. How about you provide a wonderful secular explanation if you find one? You might have provided a link to an NPS Colorado National Monument page thinking it had more to do with Monument Valley than it does.

Where did all the sediment go? The flood ripped up massive amounts of sediment quickly out and moved massive amounts of sediment into various places including and yet not limited to areas now in the Gulf of California and the Pacific Ocean perhaps.

Where did all the water go? Mostly the oceans perhaps, but there is some water that's trapped inland from the oceans and even some that went back into the earth possibly. There is way more than enough water on the earth if elevation of land can be changed and the earth itself has inceased in diameter also maybe. Have Australia and South America not apparently been next to eachother? Can you find a Pangea model that shows them being next to one another?





I have not once referred to Yosemite National Park or at least have not in here before the maybe. You might be confusing it with Yellowstone National Park.

This is not saying that streams do not curve and you read it wrong maybe...

The perimeters of buttes are not streamlined, but scalloped and irregular, so streams did not carve them.

Note: Not words of my own depending on definition at least perhaps, but very valid words regardless perhaps.

Do you want to argue for wind having been a main natural worker for carving out sediment or sedimentary rock between buttles in Monument Valley, regardless of how much you think wind can hide evidence of over time?

Where is it being claimed that sand grains surging upwards caused buttes and so forth? I might not be sure what happened, but subterranian water from under the basin of an above ground body of water burst forth after there was a natural dam breach and quite a bit of water from the above ground body of water flowed on towards the Kiabab Uplift on it's way to help carve Grand Canyon maybe. Subterranian water more easily burst forth in lower elevations and Buttes are in areas that were more likely to have had higher land elevation and some or all were even islands perhaps. Imagine being five foot five and bobbing around in a pool of 5 foot water and then water being quickly drained from the pool? Feel pressure on feet of yourself as water is being drained? Verticle pressure helped mud harden perhaps.

There is a most popular Imperial Sand Dunes theory that holds that wind blew beach sands of Lake Cahuilla there maybe, but you can take a look at an old shoreline of it here for yourself perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Cahuilla

Wind happened to blow sand there and no where else? It's to the side of a huge area that has been a massive spillway perhaps. See the words Algodones Dunes here?



Do you want to avoid addressing what carved canyons in certain images for some reason?

Can you find me a source online that can help convince me that this simply shows a something that was formed by a shallow pool of water melting rock over time?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ssmall.jpg

No you did not claim that the biggest problem geologists have with proof of a worldwide flood is that such a flood really should show a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition? You actually said this word for word on page 17 perhaps...

The biggest problem geologists have with proof of a worldwide flood is that such a flood really should show a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition.

What geologically suggests the global mid-oceanic ridge system was not all formed less than 5,000 years ago within a year's worth of time? How about pull out specific examples if you can come up with some and do not simply call on authority without showing specific geologic examples?

The Institute for Creation Science has since been discouraging students from truly doing what investigations?

Where is proof that earth is older than 6,000 years?

Note: There's an image in here that's cropped from a flashearth.com shot maybe... I might not be sure what I should and should not do in regards to copyrighted stuff and in general, but you can check out flashearth.com for yourself perhaps.

[john9blue]

The perimeters of buttes are not streamlined, but scalloped and irregular, so streams did not carve them.

You seem quite sure of this...

[Lionz]

Maybe you missed a disclaimer below it and that's something that was quoted by myself and then Player. : )

[PLAYER57832]

Now you should guess where this is maybe...

No. You don't even have to look too closely at those pictures to see the scale (the size). The particles are clearly visible. Again, the only people who would make the assumption that this could be confusing are people who really don't know of what they speak.

...

Already answered the next part. Any repeats of questions will be deleted without answer from now on. Repeating the same photograph does not constitute either new information, new discussion or a new question.

Any references to "yes, the flood occured" or "God did create the universe" will similarly be deleted. I already answered these, ad nauseum.

a major disaster ravaged various places including Teotihuacan

Other people in the forums have already dealth with Egypt. Per Teotihuacan, and so forth in South America, yes, but it wasn't a flood.

and are there not Olmec statue heads with black dude type features

ask an archeologist to explain that. (which means DO ask an archeologist, not that there is no answer).

and are there not fossil remains of marine creatures that can be found on the Sierras and the Swiss Alps and the Himalayas

This is evidence of tectonic shifts. You can see that this happens on a small scale in Northridge, CA and along the San Andreas fault. Beginning with evidence like that, we do know that the earth has and does make major shifts.
I am not, however, going to get into trying to prove plate tectonics to you. If you won't bother to understand that layers represent timelines, then there is no point in even trying to get into more advanced principals.

and is there not evidence that there was freshwater where the Black Sea is and is there not an erosion rate for Niagra falls that suggests an age of less than 10,000 years or so even without considering what the flood would have done to help speed things up

Please present this "evidence" you claim exists and then we can discuss it.

and is there not even evidence that remains of the ark itself were found by Ron Wyatt?

So far, no real proof, no.

But like I said.. no more "the flood exists". I never denied it.

You might wonder why there would there be crosses on drogue stones from the ark. Well, the ark has a location that was widely known about in the first century maybe. Josephus is a famous historian who lived in the first century and he spoke of it as if it was a pretty commonly known about thing that people could go and see for themselves in the Antiquities of the Jews perhaps. Maybe you don't trust me and can go here and look for a 6th section of 3rd chapter for yourself. You might want to just go ahead and use CTRL-F to search for ship in Armenia.

The only real point that matters is that while some people still say these things might be "the arc", there is no confirmed proof. Further, investigation of these sites has given evidence that makes it highly unlikely these things were an arc. In many casese, they were not really boats.

Imagination can create a lot of pictures in rock and out of clouds. Proof, however, is something else.

Just skip any future attempts to show "proof" of an ark. Being a Christian, I tend to pay close attention to such things, but so far no report has been validated. Posting all that is a pure waste of time.

You have not answered this maybe. If each flood leaves a distinct layer then how many floods are shown here?

NO repeat questions.

Maybe you post stuff without really reading what it says and you assume I do not check out what you refer to at least partially as a result. You sent stuff having to do with upright fossils that claims rapid sedimentation in river deltas and other coastal plain settings is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors maybe. Accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano was also mentioned maybe, but what would global sea level rising or that have to do with burying a tree over a hundred feet tall in wet sediment if that occured?

NO repeat questions. And the answer is that you are operating on some extremely faulty assumptions. I told you this already. Your question is idiotic when you look at the evidence and what IS claimed. You are asking me to explain, with science something that young earth creationists and not scientists claim occured.

When did you refer me to a link concerning polystrate fossils if you did at some point? You referred to words pulled from wikipedia and never gave me an actual link to a polystrate fossil wikipedia article maybe.

then use google and find your own links.

What's used to date sedimentary layers in a more than this is older than that type sense not counting index fossils? Did you mean to say Older layers rest upon younger layers as an answer to that?

No repeat questions. If you don't like my answer, use the internet. There are plenty of real geology sites that explain the real process. It is not what you were taught. I told you this already. You insist on referring only to young earth creationist sites. They lie about scientific methodology. If you want the truth of scientific methodology, visit real science sites, such as those put out by USGS or any of the major university geology departments.

What proves that things die, fall to the bottom and are often covered up?

Observations

Carnivores and aerobic decomposers and anaerobic decomposers would make quick work of a fish that did that unless it was buried deeply and quickly and there were conditions right for lithification maybe.

Again, a repeat. Who said that things were not buried quickly? You think this is what evolutionists claim because young earth sites tell you this, but it is not true. Things do get buried quickly in the fossilization process. It just is not the result of one world-wide flood. It is the result of many, many things.

You claim the proof that something happens over a very long period of time is both the stratification, layering of sediments and species AND the fact that you see very distinct groups of fossils in each time period? Can you elaborate if so?

I can refer you to websites that explain this quite well. I have already. You refuse to even consider them. You simply dismiss it all as garbage without looking at the evidence. And, as I have said, the evidence, while present, is not necessarily evident easily on the web.

You yourself suggested index fossils themselves are the main tool used to determine where geologic layers date to maybe.

You take part of what I said and not the whole. I also said that index fossils are only used cautiously and after being proven to be of value. That's rather like saying "he said do not go" is the same as "he said go". Technically, the same words were spoken, but the meanings are very different when you see the whole.

How about consider these and ask yourself what trilobites have to do with the words index and fossils.
[picture deletted]
Trilobites are still alive now perhaps.

I believe those are actually sea Isopods. The link below will show you an pretty identical picture. It is definitely an Isopod.

(Note, I I tried to copy a picture of an isopod, but could not. Here is the link to it, though: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... CAoQ9QEwAg )

Isopods (Phylum Arthropoda, Class Crustacea)
Perhaps it is the isopods that come the closest to pulling of an effective trilobite impersonation. After all, they belong to the same phylum of hard-shelled, segmented, multi-legged creatures, the Arthropoda. They also occupy marine habitats and there are thousands of species. Some of these can be remarkably trilobite-like in form. In fact one species (top right) is named Serolis trilobitoides, hearkening to this resemblance. The serolid isopods include quite a few species that might be at first confused with trilobites, but there are other isopod species, even including terrestrial ones (bottom right) that are pretty convincing trilo-imposters. The giant deep-sea isopod Bathynomus giganteus (below) has even been hailed by the ignorant as proof of living trilobites, despite clear labels of the creatures as crustaceans!

Again, I was not able to copy the picture mentioned, but here is the link to them. http://www.trilobites.info/triloimposters.htm

It has been a while since I studied Invertebrate zoology, so I cannot remember the exact difference between Isopods and Trilobytes. However, they are different animals. Anyone at all knowledgeable in either invertebrate zoology OR paleontology would know this. Again, it is a classic example of the way young earth creationists rely mostly upon a LACK of information, LACK of education in their students to make their points convincing.

Here is an explanation of a few other imposters young earth creationists try to trot out:
Have you? Probably not. Trilobites have been extinct since before the age of Dinosaurs (about 251 million years ago), but some living creatures bear such close superficial resemblance to trilobites that they cause great excitement when encountered. After all, to rediscover living trilobites would be akin to the rediscovery of the coelacanth Latimeria, a very primitive-looking lobe-finned fish that is considered a "living fossil." It belongs to a lineage of fishes that was thought extinct since about 80 million years ago, in the time of the dinosaurs. So too, a true living trilobite would be a find of the century!

Alas, no living trilobite has ever truly been documented. However, some trilobite imposters can be quite convincing. On this page we will showcase several of them, and reveal their true (non-trilobite) nature. Among the candidates are segmented mollusks (chitons), aquatic insects (water pennies), and a range of marine crustaceans (typically isopods of some sort). Some of the most convincing of these are isopods in the family Serolidae, such as the example at left. If you are fooled by any of these trilobite imposters, you are not alone! There is a fairly long history of naturalists and biologists that have been taken in, at least temporarily, by creatures new to science bearing such a strong resemblance to trilobites that excitement overcomes common sense.

Note that, as I have said before, EVEN IF there were living trilobytes, it would prove nothing. For one thing, it would be almost certain that the actual species would differ. It is like saying that discovering that red stags are native to Europe the white tail deer is not found in north America. I already told you that index fossils are things PROVEN to be found only in one particular strata. AND I told you that even that assertion is not made absolutely. That is, if the species is found in a new, undiscovered strata, it might alter some timelines and perceptions, but in no way would threaten the entire theory of evolution or mean that suddenly the world could have been created in 6,000 years (or whatever young earth date you wish to use).
Don't bring up either this claim that something living means it cannot be a prehistoric species again! And Don't bring up this garbage about strata being dated using circular reasoning again. Neither is even close to true!
Any repeats will be deleted!

If you claim young earth creationists only trot out a few fossils where there are definite problems and/or even outright fraud, then how about you bring up some fossils for discussion? You already referred to some that have been addressed by me maybe. You claim that millions of fossils claimed to be links between fish and tetrapods have been found? How about you bring up some for discussion if so?

I already pointed you to where this information is found and even posted a good many excerpts. Further, I specifically said that lack of evidence regarding ONE group or set of links is not enough to disprove evolution.

Again, no repeated claims that "transition fossils don't exists" or "the fossil record is just too incomplete". It is simply not true, except that young earth creationists will accept nothing short of a time machine that goes back and takes pictures. Even then, I suspect they would find an excuse to explain the evidence away.

Wow... you actually threaten to report me as a troll? Who would you even contact to do that? How do you define troll if you define it somehow?

Read forum guidelines.

I'm not claiming that species cannot change into other species and you should be careful not to lie and be careful not to falsely accuse me of things maybe.

Oh please.. more young earth creationists definition shifts. For a long time, the claim WAS that "no species can become another species". Now, they acknowledge that species can change into closely related species or "types". Exactly what "type" means has gone from "within the same genus" to now "within the same family". Before long that will likely become "within the same class" or even "within the same phylum". Meanwhile, evolutionists rely on evidence.

Are living dinosaurs not written about in The Travels of Marco Polo? Is it not suggested that there were people hunting dinosaurs over 50 feet in length less than 1,000 years ago in it?

Marco Polo reported a lot of things we know to be exaggerated, even though some of what he said was true. There is no evidence of living dinosaurs, other then birds. If some is found, though, it would be a remarkable discover, not reason to throw out the evolution textbooks.

AGAIN --any repeats of "dinosaurs exist", along with repeats of this assumption that finding living fossils somehow disproves that the fossils are old, will be deleted.

REPEAT section, deleted
[/quote]

Did you mean to claim that archaeologic evidence regarding human civilization alone is enough to show the earth is older than 6,000 years old? How about refer to some if so?

How about you look up "Clovis first" theories regarding humans here in the Americas. Nevermind that many, many people now believe the Americas were initially settled even earlier. The clovis theory provides evidence enough. (the Clovis evidence found is not in dispute, only added to with earlier evidence

deleted section on China. No repeats. Reread my previous response.

And you claim geologic evidence definitely shows the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years? How so, if so? We were conditioned to believe earth was billions of years old as children and it can be hard to break away perhaps.

Evidence, evidence, evidence.
Definitely harder to understand than "god went "poof" ". Particularly when you went to a school (or home "school") that never bothered to teach you real science.

NO REPEATS! Everything I have posted here either is or points to evidence that the earth is old.

You said this and I'm not sure what's referred to with the word it here perhaps...

How about if you ask a clear question, first of all. Second, how about you tell me (clearly) why you believe it shows proof against evolution.

Hmm .. sorry, cannot help you. I don't read your mind. If you want an answer, ask a clear question or make a clear point.

In particular, provide evidence showing the techniques used to verify all this you claim is "known to be true".

Can you provide a source that claims children all over were taught that if they keep asking any evolutionist questions, they will get to a point where they cannot answer?

No, I told you this is what happened where I used to live. If you don't wish to believe me, too bad. Its not really relevant to this discussion, just another example of the techniques young earther's use.

I'm not claiming anything in a Bible says Adam and her were immortal perhaps, but does Genesis say that Adam and her were mortal before partaking? If so, where?

No repeats!

deleted several repeated questions.

If the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef started growing less than 5,000 years ago then that's clearly evidence backing up there having been a global flood less than 5,000 years ago and I'm not sure what you want me to do in terms of clarification maybe.

A. show proof that this has happened. (pointing out links to studies is fine, discussion of techniques used even better).
B. No, it is not necessarily evidence of a flood. Explain why you think it would be, because the thought simply defies any logic and science I know.

What is my point if I have one in asking you if you see a word count graph referring to federal funding regardless of if something was taught having to do with evolution in US public schools before 1963? Well, you tried to brush away one or more thing by claiming evolution was taught about before 1963 or at least something like that maybe. How much concerning evolution was taught in US public schools before 1963? I've presented one or more graph that can help you get a decent idea maybe.

Evolution was taught everywhere prior to 1963. It became the standard shortly after the Scopes trial. Creationism never FULLY left, but this modern creationism put forward by Dr Morris and his son only got a real resurgeance in the late 70's and early 80's. So any evidence attempting to compare the two types of thinking that ends as early as your charts is just not valid.

I'm not claiming we need to bring in any poppycock theory anyone wishes to present by any means perhaps, but what would suggesting to a child that universal common descent is true and then asking the child if evolution happened fast or slow have to do with getting a child to think critically? That would really be a Soviet style brainwashing technique maybe.

Teaching about evolution provides evidence. Your suggestion of how education works is just wrong. Your points are not valid because they have little to do with how evolution is taught.

I was not really meaning to ask you if evolution happened fast or slow depending on definition at least perhaps..

How does this outline a plan of young earth creationists if you claim it does somehow?

I think most people here in this forum will see your attempts at logic and refutation of science as a prime example, assuming you honestly believe what you post.

If you had any real science education, you would already know that most of what you have posted simply CANNOT be true, is invalidated by evidence that exists.

Is there really any need at all to get into origins in a public school?

I used to think you could avoid teaching origins. However, for these young earth theories to be true, most of not just biology and geology, but also chemistry, physics, anthropology, etc, etc.... most of all science would be completely invalidated. To even come close to believing these things are true means you believe there is a huge anti-Christian conspiracy that is hiding the truth OR that every scientist on earth, except young earth creationist scientists, are complete idiots who completely violate all tenants of how science is supposed to work (based on proof, tests, etc.).

Science is about teaching what is proven versus what it not. It is about giving kids enough knowledge of scientific techniques and methods that they can go out and find information on their own, understand things that are published, etc. A good education also includes a good amount of critical thinking, including how statistics actually work (particularly sampling), how to investigate science techniques (and the proof of those techniques), etc.

Young earthers, by contrast, want to make kids re-invent the wheel. They go through school never learning about real science. They can easily believe all these theories, because they have never been shown the evidence that lays the foundations for most science. Even in many public schools, science teaching is very poor, so that kids can emerge without a real and true understanding of what scientists believe what they do.

The media, of course, adds to this. You hear of a study saying "don't eat x" one day, then shortly thereafter "DO eat x".. etc. A lot of times, the original science was correct in both cases, and in both cases understood to be prelminary data that might be refuted later. Media doesn't like long lists of "maybe, if, and under these conditions..." , so they skip all that. Scientists, people who understand how science works know those "qualifiers" are there and understand that differing results are not just psosible, but often expected, because proving anything about human diet is so very, very, very complex and takes a lot of proof. There are just so many variables, so many things that can change impacts and results.

If you claim He intelligently designed living creatures you're going to offend some people and if you claim humans ultimately come from a rock and share common ancestry with earthworms you're going to offend some people perhaps.

People who are offended by truth are idiots.

Repeat question, deleted.

I very much was taught stuff having to do with evolution in public school and I know of no one in their 20s who was not maybe. If young earth creationism was taught in a US public school in the 80s or 90s or 2000s, then where did that happen? Do you have a source you can provide? [/quote]
In California, among other places. Do your own research.

Any tangential questions will be deleted. This topic is long enough as it is. Start a new thread or get someone else to answer. I cannot be bothered.

I'm not claiming there should be prayer in public school, but we should expect for teen pregnancies to rise somewhere if we replace prayer with evolutionary teaching there perhaps.

Are you actually trying to claim that evolutionary teaching somehow replaces prayer in school?

I have never heard a more IDIOTIC assertion. Sorry, but that caps even what you have previously posted!

Who determines what's right and wrong if He does not exist and we are simply a collection of chemicals that evolved from a rock? If it's all about surviving and passing on genes, then should people not steal to try to benefit themselves and family of them and have sex with as many partners as possible as long as no STD is involved?

Morality is taught at home, in church. As for the other, there is just as much science to suggest those things are stupid.

Further claims of how evolution has lead to a loss of morality in society will be deleted.

Females got married earlier and abortions occured less in some or all years before 1960 and you make one or more moot point having to do with statistics maybe. Remember Roe vs. Wade? One or more interesting image having to do with abortion below perhaps.

Here is a hint.. how about you consider that this is tied to availability of birth control instead of trying to tie it to evolution.

deleted a whole set of repeated and/or irrelevant or just plain idiotic questions (I mean if you seriously think I would say its OK for teens to have sex you have not read anything I wrote on the subject).

Why would how many origins you think there have been matter in discussion regarding evolution? Well, you and I believe things have brought forth variety over time and I'm not really sure where we disagree in the first place for one maybe.

I believe that God created life a very, very long time ago and used evolution to bring what we see today.

Don't ask this again.

Have I made several references to things that are 5,000 years old as possible proof of a flood? Maybe I'm being nit picky here, but whether or not I'm trying to prove anything comes down to definition and the Methusela tree and the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef are all LESS than 5,000 years old maybe. The flood actually occured closer to 4,500 years ago maybe.

Not just nitpicking, but repeating a question for about the 5th time. Future occurances will be deleted.

Repeated questions deleted.

No more "prove to me that petrification isn't rapid" "questions".

Grand Canyon is composed of sedimentary rock that was once wet sediment regardless of how hard or soft Burlingame Canyon is perhaps. Also, weathering has produced debris along sides of the Grand Canyon and mesas and buttes and spires and it has also effected some sedimentary layers more than others and ultimately given Grand Canyon a more stairlike appearance than Burlingame as a result maybe.

You refer to stuff having to do with Burlingame that at least basically claims 1.5 million years would be required to form the Grand Canyon if it eroded at the same rate as Burlingame maybe. As if we should use an amount of water used to carve Burlingame in trying to determine how long it would take water to cut the Grand Canyon maybe. Do you not see a logical fallacy? You might have already suggested you found one with one or more disclaimer type thing. There was enough water to cover the whole earth during the flood perhaps.

No this is absolutely contradicted by the evidence and several fields of science. I told you where to find the evidence of this.
You ignored it, in favor of your far neater (but sadly, utterly false) young earth articles.
Repeats of this will be deleted.

I've never referred to the Yellowstone petrified forest or at least have not in here maybe, but you refer to stuff having to do with it that does not really contradict me maybe. There might have been quite a bit of volcanic activity during the flood that helped to move wet sediment around. Do you not refer to trees in sedimentary rock whether or not we call on volcanic activity to try to help explain something?

If you want to know how geologists explain this, ask the geologists who study this or look at what they have posted.

repeated question, deleted.

Article Critique? You claim that young earthers will only concentrate on areas where there are real questions? Well, where would one concentrate if not somewhere with real questions?

Disproving areas where scientists say there is no question, instead of claiming that places where they acknowledge questions exist mean everything they have proven is faulty.

You would be hard pressed to find a young earth creationist who claims that speciation does not occur perhaps.

Who claimed Werner Gitt was a leading expert or claimed that he's a laughing stock in a profession? Are you trying to criticise him in regards to knowledge of information theory? He started his career at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and ended up being Head of Q4 Information Technology for about 25 years before retiring in 2002 perhaps. You cut off wikipedia stuff mid-sentence in quoting for some mysterious reason maybe.

He is not an expert in Biology or evolution. You can be a fantastic plumber, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want you fixing my car. As for who says this, I provided the links. You can also do your own search.

Did you mean to claim that evolutionists don't claim that natural selection and mutations have produced new genetic information? Where has new genetic information come from if some has come about and it has not come about through mutations? You might have read one or more thing wrong.

I did not claim this, no. Young earth creationists claim that mutations don't provide new information.

Questions with no purpose but petty argument deleted.

Who claims a theory says that one species must disappear before a new one can show up? You misunderstood one or more thing and went off on something that was not even claimed maybe.

No, I have read things published by the Institute for Creation Science. The article on "Darwin is wrong" makes this claim regarding Ceolocanths, though they have learned to couch it a bit more carefully than they did in the past.

You suggested mutations did not create new genetic information and then went on to claim they could later on maybe. Which is it? You can mix up letters in the word computer and come up with a number of things included the words pot and mut perhaps, but will you ever get the word zoo from it?

Already answered.

What is there to theorize about in regards to where beetles of flight have come from if He created beetles of flight directly out of non-living material?

Point to where I or any other evolutionist claimes that he created beetles out of non-living material or created beetle flight even out of non-living material?

The continents have been closer together than you yourself think maybe.

Huh? They were joined. Cannot get much closer than that!

Do you adamantly claim floods are pretty well understood by all except young earth creationists and expect me to take you seriously?

No, I expect you dismiss it just as you dismiss everything else I have posted without even bothering to really look at the evidence that exists.

Again, any repeats of "show me ANY proof of evolution" .. or the age of earth or similar types of claims will be deleted until such time as you can demonstrate that you have actually looked at the evidence I already stated exists (note, I have not posted all that evidence, but I have told you how to find it).

Again, "God exists" /is the creator arguments will be deleted. I believe God does exist and is the creator.

You ask who determines what is and is not believable? What do you mean, if so? The earth revolving around the sun should not be far fetched to anyone who has walked around and seen things move around them maybe.

But it is known to be untrue by anyone who has studied much of science.

Embryology is one of four evidence for evolution sections presented by National Geographic whether or not National Geographic technically claims ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny perhaps.

Humans don't have vestigial tails by any means perhaps. Are there not nine little muscles that attach to the tail bone which are used to do some very valuable functions? What does it really even have to do with tails? Is it not simply the end of the spine? And would a tail not actually come in handy? Imagine coming up to a door carrying two sacks of groceries maybe.

Whether or not the loss of function through the loss of genetic information can be evidence of the ascendance from a lowly kind of creature up to a higher form which would require an increase of information comes down to definition maybe, but what would the loss of genetic information do to suggest single celled organisms evolved to be human beings?

Your questions have no basis in reality and are basically impossible to answer because you begin by assuming things that are just not true.

I will try to answer your last question. The article asserted that each mutation results in loss of information, not increases and that natural selection dictates species become more complex (actually contradictory onto themselves, but anyway, those assertions are both made in that article). Neither one of these assertions is true. For how a single celled organim might have evolved into haman beings you need to look well beyond just a single cell and humans. But.. we have been down that path before and you dismiss all fossil evidence simply out of hand, as well as any other evidence I have provided. So, unless and until you are willing to look at why those things are considered either proven or highly likely or even just "possible" and why young earth ideas are impossible, there is little point in posting more on this point.

Where did someone claim that having parts without form is proof against evolution? Or claim that a fact that something had a use means they are not proof of evolution? You might have a head spinning as a result of reading things wrong.

Read the article you posted.

How would a process of forced transformation among inimical germs support a Darwinian theory if one flu virus changes into another flu virus and one staph bacterium changes into a different staph bacterium and one variety of house fly brings forth another variety of house fly? That would back up there being created kinds that have brought forth variety maybe.

big changes result from compounded small changes.

Yes to a question by you concerning going in an opposite direction of what evolution requires depending on definition at least maybe. How many mutations can you name that are not unbeneficial in terms of organisms surviving and passing on genetic information through reproduction?

I believe most mutations are harmful. Many mutations are nuetral. Only a few mutations are beneficial. This is basic genetics.

What would a mutation like that do to suggest that humans evolved from a single cell organism?

Alone, not much.

String of argumentative, pointless and/or already answered questions deleted.

You quote wikipedia quite a bit and yet suggested you did not think it was a good souce of information earlier maybe. Why do you spell it wikkipeadia if you do and do for some reason?

Wikkipeadia originated as a source that could be edited by almost anyone, without the need to verify credibility. As a result, it is full of opinions and unverified sources. Since its origination, it has tightened up some posting rules.

It is OK as a general source for general explanations of things, and is fairly trustworthy if you just want to understand basic concepts, find out what people thing about various things and so forth. It is not, however a verified scientific text.

Most of what I post are just general explanations, so Wikki is a decent source.

questions deleted. see above if anyone is interested in what I deleted.

Can you find me a source that claims slabs of rock liquify from being pushed?

Here is a good "general public" explanation.
http://geologyecology.suite101.com/arti ... rock-cycle
Note that these are things so fundamental to geology that you will have to dig a great deal to find the proofs.

Here are some images showing smaller scale stuff that you should consider maybe...





There's evidence in various places that suggests several layers of strata were in a putty like state at the same time and compressed together while they were like that perhaps.

Yes, this is actually about what geologists would say.

deleted

You want evidence for the earth having expanded rapidly during or immediately after the flood or both and want evidence for sliding plates having led to there being mountain ranges in certain places? I already provided images having to do with the earth expanding and there's evidence on one or more site referred to be me having to do with the Hydroplate Theory for both or at least the later perhaps.

No, you provided an explanation that you believe, not proof or links to proof. I have often provided explanations, but I also have told you how to find the real proof. In your case, it just does not exist. As for the "sliding plates", I of course do believe plate tectonics theories.

Are oceanic ridges not cracks with folds protruding up in between them? When do cracks have something buckle up in between them? Well, compress a foam pad into an open box and lay bricks on top of it and then start removing bricks from a center area one at a time maybe. Water bursted up from the earth along cracks now know as oceanic ridges and cracks became large enough from erosion for an inner layer of geologic material to buckle up perhaps. An inner layer that buckled up and led to upper plates being pushed outwards towards continental shelves maybe... maybe I should have went into more detail earlier and now you can understand these at least somewhat better...

No, posting the same pictures over and over is not going to help me to "understand better". I understand, but these theories are proven false by real geology.

However, unless and until you are willing to look at the real geologic evidence, this line of discussion is pointless.

You mean to claim that those are pictures that are directly counter to what evidence shows did happen in most cases? Can you refer to the evidence if so? Another accusation without backing it maybe.

Rather, another example of you ignoring what I already posted and then pretending I am lying or such.

Do you want evidence for fountains of the great deep not breaking up just anywhere or evidence that earth contains geothermal features and geysers with more than half of the former and 80% of the later being found in an area known as the volcanically active Yellowstone region or evidence for both or evidence for neither?

Uh.. presence of geysers is not evidence of a flood. Those formed through other, known processes.

You have provided what young earther's try to pass of as a reasonable explanation, but no proof. I ask for proof that shows this is even possible OR that actually refutes, with evidence, what geologist assert happened.

You claim I presented an idea that is directly counter to many known physical laws? Can you refer to the known physical laws if so? Another accusation without backing it maybe.

Let's begin with that bit about the Grand Canyong being the result of the flood.. and pretty much every explanation you provided to claim this is true.

You claim my theory paragraph or whatever is not based on any real evidence and that much evidence disputes it as possible? Can you refer to the evidence that disputes it as possible if so? Another accusation without backing it maybe. I've already provided evidence backing it up whether you've failed to notice it or not maybe.

You claim there are no references backing stuff here up?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view4.html


Maybe you can and should look a bit harder. See reference numbers? Reference numbers will take you to one or more page with references including a page here perhaps...

I beleive I said "rarely" back up with evidence. At any rate, this "proof" is claiming that something observed to happen in earthquakes hasn't happened!

I will leave it to a phycisist or geologist to truly critique this. I have been out of school too long. However, I can make a few points. The first is that the plates are not necessarily uniformely dense. The second is that the movement is very, very slow. The third point is that no one claimed there would be "no cracking". The fourth is heat & pressure are is involved, which transform the rocks.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1290902

Conclusion: A rock slab longer than 8 miles cannot be pushed over unlubricated rock, so overthrusts would not occur in this fashion, and mountains would not buckle. Because both happened (for example, see Figure 49 on page 112), something lubricated the movement.

The "lubricant" supposedly non-existant is explained as melted rock. (see link I posted earlier explaining geologic processes).


If you want me, and likely anyone else, to respond (or even just want this thread to stay unlocked), then stop repeating questions, severely limit the pictures you post to ONLY those that are truly critical and NOT REPEATED. And try actually reading the full responses, including links provided.

[PLAYER57832]

Moved from "god" thread

They did evolve from land mammals according to mainstream evolutionary theory perhaps... wikipedia actually claims they evolved from an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate maybe... I might have said stuff wrong, but what in terms of the fossil record suggests they evolved from an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate? It might be easier to believe they evolved from cow-like creatures than deer-like creatures.

Several references to say a precursor to whales was a "cow-like" and/or a "wolf-like" creature. The "like" bit is a matter of opinion and not worth arguing about. The bottom line is that whales did evolve from land animals, and none of the missing pieces or even mistakes made are even close to poking a hole big enough to allow for young earth theories. THAT is the point.

[PLAYER57832]

How about you and I try to have a more peaceful tone with one another? What's there to get angry about really?

I am not angry at you, but when I get tired, I do sound rather cranky. To the extent I am angry, it is at the folks who are putting all these lies forward. Because they ARE lies.

Christ disdains lies. We all make small untruths and inadvertant lies, but to put forward such things as this, to so completely ignore existing science, goes well beyond that. If lies are needed to put forward Christ's message, then he has no message.

deleted several assertions and questions already answered.

You claim I refuse to consider evidence that is used to identify the Plesitocene? What is used to identify the Plesitocene?

Hint: Google "pleistocene" follow the links, perferably ones put out by real universities or perhaps the USGS (or similar Canadien, UK agency)

- Would assuming that earth randomly came together from a random distribution of dust particles not be a faulty assumption if He intelligently designed the earth and created it out of nothing?

You mistake a possible conclusion for an assumption. Scientists believe it is likely that the Earth came from dust particles, though the "random" here is not a true mathematical randomness as you might wish to believe (definitely does not preclude God organizing it all!). Scientists don't assume this to be true. They look for evidence, though in this case, that evidence is (at least as far as I know) not very firm in the same sense that fossils and the geologic strata are firm evidence.

Theoretically, Someone could prove that space aliens came and deposited the materials in our universe that would become Earth, it would not in any way impact the theory of Evolution. They could prove that the earth formes some way that no one yet envisions, but it would not change the view of evolution.

So, again, what "base assumptions" do you claim scientists make?

- Would assuming that there has always been a constant amount of carbon 14 produced in the atmosphere not be a faulty assumption if the earth had a vastly different atmosphere and 30 times more plantlife on it just 5,000 years ago? Is there any radiometic dating technique that does not assume a starting number in something and assume there's been a constant rate of decay in something?

The problem is that you ignore the proof that shows this is NOT the case. This is not something that was just assumed. The rate of constant decay has been shown to be a valid conclusion based on masses of evidence. To contrast, young earthers toss out "this doesn't make sense".. "we'd rather believe that the fundamental physics of earth just switched prior to the flood".

- Would assuming that there has not been an earthwide flood when studying the fossil record not be a faulty assumption if there has been an earthwide flood?

I said point out assumptions that scientists actually MAKE. There is no evidence for a flood. Lack of evidence is NOT firm proof. I said this already.

Want me to keep going?

I would like you to point out real assumptions scientists actually make, not more of that "young earthers think" garbage.

What can Oxbow Lakes do to explain Monument Valley?

Nothing. They do, however, illustrate that this claim that rivers don't meander "that much" is wrong, which was the point.

repeated questions deleted.

Where did all the sediment go? The flood ripped up massive amounts of sediment quickly out and moved massive amounts of sediment into various places including and yet not limited to areas now in the Gulf of California and the Pacific Ocean perhaps.

Evidence of this? And if this happened, then why those strange dune formations we see. You cannot have it both ways. Either the torrents ripped away the sediments and scoured the Grand Canyon, etc. or they did not.
Your own theories contradict themselves.

And yes, I did already give you real explanations.

. Have Australia and South America not apparently been next to eachother? Can you find a Pangea model that shows them being next to one another?

Try googling Gondwana instead of Pangea.

I have not once referred to Yosemite National Park or at least have not in here before the maybe. You might be confusing it with Yellowstone National Park.

Possibly, it matters not really.

Deleted questions, points already addressed

Where is it being claimed that sand grains surging upwards caused buttes and so forth? I might not be sure what happened, but subterranian water from under the basin of an above ground body of water burst forth after there was a natural dam breach and quite a bit of water from the above ground body of water flowed on towards the Kiabab Uplift on it's way to help carve Grand Canyon maybe. Subterranian water more easily burst forth in lower elevations of the and Buttes are in areas that were more likely to have had higher land elevation and some or all were even islands perhaps. Imagine being five foot five and bobbing around in a pool of 5 foot water and then water being quickly drained from the pool? Feel pressure on feet of yourself as water is being drained? Verticle pressure helped mud harden perhaps.

This is not how earth processes work. This is why I referred you to that USGS site. It explained some basic processes. I also referred you to a site that goes into even simpler explanations of earths' processes.

Already answered, questions deleted.

Do you want to avoid addressing what carved canyons in certain images for some reason?

Yes, I don't have the time to dig up all the geologic explanations for every picture you wish to bring up. Also, you have pretty well ignored the answers I have given, so why should I bother with more.

Can you find me a source online that can help convince me that this simply shows a something that was formed by a shallow pool of water melting rock over time?

here is a very informative and quite scientific book which you can read on river processes : http://books.google.com/books?id=vI13qo ... ck&f=false

What geologically suggests the global mid-oceanic ridge system was not all formed less than 5,000 years ago within a year's worth of time? How about pull out specific examples if you can come up with some and do not simply call on authority without showing specific geologic examples?

Here is a wikki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge


Now, look back over those posts and you see large sections where I note that I have deleted questions because you already asked them, etc.

You nitpick my answers, refuse to follow most of the links I provide and absolutely refuse to follow any of the links to evidence. When I ask for evidence, you present diagrams from a young earth texts or websites. The "evidence" presented in them is misleading if not false, but you present nothing better and claim to "not understand" what I mean by evidence or anything else real, no matter how many ways I try to explain.

If you cannot answer MY questions and begin posting real links or citations for evidence, if you cannot ask real questions that you have not asked before, then will ignore any further posts.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

What happened to Teotihuacan?

There's more than one theory concerning Olmec statue heads perhaps.



Any reason you would not use fossils on mountains yourself to back up Genesis 7:19? How about help me understand Genesis 7:19 if you can?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

Here's a wikipedia site where you can learn more about where the Black Sea came from perhaps. It might include the word all where it technically should not be used, but see a place in a criticsim section that says it is agreed by all that the sequence of events described did occur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory

Here's a page where you can learn more about Niagara Falls erosion rate perhaps. You might want to CTRL-F search Niagara here.

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar1.html

Do you have a theory about where the ark is? Ron Wyatt has came across stuff that is generally kept out of mainstream sources of information at this point maybe. What did I provide images showing if Ron Wyatt has not helped reveal remains of the ark?

No repeating a question even if you do have not answered it?

Maybe you should help me understand what extremely faulty assumptions I'm operating under if I'm operating under some.

What about observation prove that things die, fall to the bottom and are often covered up? And did you not personally suggest that things simply fell to the bottom of bodies of water and fossilized without being buried quickly and deeply? Is there any fossil that has been found in sedimentary rock which was not buried in a underwater or above water landslide of sediment?

Do you claim that these are words of you taken out of context...

For one thing, carbon 14 dating is mostly used for more recent archeological dating. In fossils, the carbon has usually long since been replaced with other minerals (this is not necessarily always true, but often). The fossils I studied most are among the most ancient .. those of fish. It just is not a tool used. Instead, fossils are dated by looking at the rock layers where they are found. Once I got past my general education classes, I never heard about Carbon 14 again, though we did study fossils.

Note: Those are words of you and not me depending on definition at least perhaps.

I did provide one or more image showing a Baltic isopod possibly. What suggests anything died off millions of years ago whether or not we define Baltic isopods as trilobites? Coelacanth was thought to have been extinct for millions of years and then was caught off the coast of Africa in 1938 perhaps. Also, consider this maybe...

This is from a textbook. It shows a trilobite. It says, "Trilobite fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer probably formed 500 million years ago." You think the rock with the trilobite is 500 million years old? Well, I have a question. How come somebody found a human shoe print where somebody with a shoe on had stepped on a trilobite? They asked geologists all over, how could a human step on a trilobite? I mean trilobites lived 500 million years ago, man didn’t get here until three million years ago and he didn’t start wearing shoes until five thousand years ago. How can this be? One geologist said, "Well, maybe aliens visited the planet 500 million years ago." Yes, that will do it every time. Another guy said, "Maybe there was a larger trilobite shaped like a shoe that fell on a small one." Oh there are some big ones, but they are not shaped like a shoe.

Is there a fossil you claim is evidence of fish evolving to land dwelling tetrapods that you would like to discuss? That might have even happened, but is there a fossil you would like to discuss. It might be easier to believe that than believe that a deer-like creature evolved to be a whale.

You say one or more thing as if there is one massive body of young earth creationists who all believe the same thing at the same time maybe. And is there anyone who has ever claimed that a farmer can't breed different types of dogs from only one male and one female?

I referred to a forum thread page with several images portraying dinosaurs portrayed in ancient art and several things having to do with dinosaurs being mentioned in history over a couple hundred years ago perhaps, but maybe you would rather not discuss dinosaurs.

What suggests there were Clovis people walking on earth over 6,000 years ago if there is something that does which does not have to do with assuming the earth's atmosphere has produced constant amount of carbon 14 for millions of years?

Where did you address Xia Dynasty stuff if you did somewhere?

Are you opposed to trying to make a bullet point list of evidences for earth being millions of years old?

You said this and I'm not sure what is mean by it perhaps...

In particular, provide evidence showing the techniques used to verify all this you claim is "known to be true".

Note: You said that and it's not words of mine depending on definition at least perhaps. There has been more than one occasion when I have repeated words of you and you have taken it as words originally from me maybe.

What do you want me to prove? I can't prove I was born in 1983 depending on definition at least maybe, but I've already provided evidence for the flood perhaps.

You want me to say why the Sahara Desert and the Great Barrier Reef being less than 5,000 years ago would be evidence for there having been a global flood less than 5,000 years ago if that would be evidence for that somehow? Neither would prove one happened less than 5,000 years ago by any means perhaps, but if they were over 5,000 years old they would be evidence against it maybe. Why did they start growing less than 5,000 years ago if they did and did for some reason?

You can ignore data all you want maybe, but there was a massive increase in an amount of words having to do with evolution in textbooks that coincided with a rapid increase in a number of horrible things in the early 1960s perhaps. What would creationism being taught in the 1980s have to do with that whether or not there was an increase in creationism being taught in the 1980s?

How does young earth creationism conflict with chemistry or physics if it does somehow? If all matter is self created and inorganic self-creating matter created intelligence and then life itself, would that not have been in violation of things known as the 1st law of thermodynamics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics and probability theory and biogenesis and common sense if the first two have always existed?

I'm not calling anyone an idiot by any means perhaps, but there are assumptions about the heavens and the earth not being created directly by Him and having to do with the earth's atmosphere producing a contant amount of carbon 14 and having to do with not realizing a global flood occured that have all led to faulty science perhaps. There are mainstream theories that are protected like they are religious and people repeat things they are taught in school as if they are fact without being sure if they are maybe. I took a couple of astronomy courses and a couple botany courses at the University of Georgia and got an A in at least one of each myself and it had much to do with simply memorizing stuff that was said as if it was fact perhaps.

You say one or more thing as if there is a young earth creationism school building somewhere maybe. Is there? I'm not saying there's not and I'm genuinely interesting in knowing if there is perhaps.

I'm not trying to claim that evolutionary teaching somehow replaces prayer in school perhaps, but evolution was taught about much more in the the 1960s than in the 1950s and there were ruling in the 1960s that led to a current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools maybe. You might want to search Engel v. Vitale [1962] and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963] seperately in quotation marks in a search engine.

If there was a decrease in an amount of unwed births in the United States after 1973 then it likely had to do with both abortions and birth control perhaps, but condoms existed well before the 1950s and methods of hormonal contraception were developed at least by the 1950s maybe.

Do you try to speak up for condoms and birth control pills as if they are a good thing? Have they not both likely led to an increase in premarital sex?

Werner Gitt is an expert on information theory theory and you referred to one or more thing having to do with him and whether or not information originated by itself in matter maybe. What would an expert in information theory speaking on whether or not information has originated by itself in matter have to do with getting a plumber to work on a car?

Where does an answersingenesis article say that one species must disappear before a new one can show up?

Did you use a lowercase he to refer to Yah?

I'm not saying that you or anyone has said the He created beetles or beetle flight out of non-living material perhaps. You might have basically been complaining about something not explaining how beetles of flight could have arisen, but He might have directly designed beetles of flight out of non-living material. What's there to theorize about if He did? What material was used?

Australia land has been closer to South America land than you realize maybe.

You might have just accidentally claimed that earth revolving around the sun is known to be untrue by anyone who has studied much of science.

Can you name a single mutation that was the result of new information being added?

Was wikkipeadia as original name for wikipedia?

I checked out the geologyecology page or whatever and did not see any claim that rocks liquify from being pushed perhaps.

How much time have you honestly spent learning about the hydroplate theory on creationscience.com pages?

How does real geology prove that oceanic ridge theory or whatever wrong, if it does somehow? We can both search oceanic ridges in a search engine perhaps, but how about you tell me how it does if it does somehow? You throw out accusations without backing them perhaps.

What would you consider proof for the hydroplate theory?

What about the Grand Canyon an end result of the flood is against physical laws? And you've already refused to address stuff I've said having to do with Grand Canyon and Marble Canyon perhaps. Do you want me to repeat stuff? What do you have against theorizing about what this shows?



- What does how dense any plate is have to do with proving the hydroplate theory wrong?

- What does how fast plates are moving now say about how fast plates have moved in the past?

- What does whether or not someone claimed there would be cracking have to do with proving the hydroplate theory wrong?

- What does heat and pressure have to do with proving the hydroplate theory wrong?

What would sliding plates do to shape buckled mountains as if they were putty whether or not you think melted rock was used to move an 8 mile long rock slab?

What suggests to you that whales evolved from an extinct semi-aquatic deer-like ungulate or even land animals in general? Maybe there is specific fossil you would like to discuss or something else you would like to discuss.

People assume the earth was not instantly created by Him and do experiments while assuming that perhaps. Do people not?

Is there is proof that shows earth did not have a vastly different atmosphere and 30 times more plantlife on it 5,000 years, can you share it with me?

Would assuming that there was not an earthwide flood not be an assumption whether or not you think there is evidence that suggests it's never happened?

What about any of these would not be an assumption?

a) Assuming He did not create earth out of nothing.

b) Assuming earth's atmosphere has always produced a constant rate of carbon-14.

c) Assuming there'a been no earthwide flood.

Was there not apparently quite a bit of sediment ripped from the earth out west whether there was a flood or not? Where did it all go if so and it did not go into the Gulf of California or Pacific Ocean? The flood would help explain quite a bit better than the Colorado River and any assumed to have existed Monument Valley ghost river perhaps.

Is there a theory concerning Dondwana that has pre-Australia land next to pre-South America land?



You claim this is not how earth processes work in reference to stuff said by me having to do with Monument Valley maybe. How about get detailed and tell me specifically what's wrong?

You refer to a wikipedia page in addressing questions by me having to do with the mid-oceanic ridge system and it's actually a page I looked at basically right before sending the questions maybe. What actually suggests that the system was formed less than 5,000 years ago? A current movement rate of something?

Note: This contains words that are not my own depending on definition at least and I'm misquoting in here possibly.

[PLAYER57832]

How about you
A. read the threads I just completed before blasting me with 50 more questions.

B. YOU weed out all the questions I have already answered or said I am through discussing.

C. Come up with 1-2 short questions, which I can deal with one at a time.

[Lionz]

I'm not sure if there's anything in here from you that I have not read perhaps, but maybe we should narrow things down. When was the flood and what happened during it?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not sure if there's anything in here from you that I have not read perhaps, but maybe we should narrow things down. When was the flood and what happened during it?

Short, but I DID already answer this. This one time, I will answer again.

I don't know. There is no evidence of a flood scientifically. Some say the Bible shows a clear lineage with specific dates, but that is not certain. Others disagree. I am not a Hebrew scholar or even a theologian. I listen to those who are.

ALL, of what you claim to be evidence of Noah's flood is not that evidence.

Oh, and I will toss in a "freebie" .. one more double answer. There still are those who claim that the ark rests on a mountain in turkey, etc. However, none of these claims is verified. There are many, many questions, not just scientific, but Biblical regarding those finds. I am not going to get into that any more in this thread.

[Lionz]

Is a local flood referred to in Genesis 7?

[PLAYER57832]

Is a local flood referred to in Genesis 7?

Already answered.
I am not disputing the flood, only the proof you claim as evidence. And I have discussed that already ad naseum

[Lionz]

Where did you answer that?

[PLAYER57832]

Where did you answer that?

No more cheats. Either you go back and read (I answered that in several posts.... every time you asked) or "no dice".

[Lionz]

I've made mention of one or more Genesis 7 section to you perhaps, but that's the first time I've asked you that specifically maybe. Does anyone with a name that is not PLAYER57832 remember PLAYER57832 saying that there was or was not a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7?

[PLAYER57832]

I've made mention of one or more Genesis 7 section to you perhaps, but that's the first time I've asked you that specifically maybe. Does anyone with a name that is not PLAYER57832 remember PLAYER57832 saying that there was or was not a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7?

I told you on more than one occasion that I do not dispute the flood, including above. I only dispute what you try to put forward as scientific evidence of a flood and that the earth is young. I specifically asked you how you thought the Sahara desert and the reef are supposed to be evidence of a flood, but all you could say was, essentially, "well if they were formed about 5,000 years ago, that's proof" (that is, those are not your exact words, but that is pretty much what you said).

Now, either ask some real questions, answer the questions I have posed in a real way or I am through.

[Lionz]

Saying you do not dispute the flood is not saying whether or not there is a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7 and I'm not claiming the Sahara Desert or the Great Barrier Reef prove anything perhaps.

[PLAYER57832]

Saying you do not dispute the flood is not saying whether or not there is a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7 and I'm not claiming the Sahara Desert or the Great Barrier Reef prove anything perhaps.

If you won't even stand by what you have said, then why should I even bother reading any further?

[Lionz]

Have I said anything proved anything?

[jonesthecurl]

[sits back. Passes popcorn round]

[PLAYER57832]

I still wish there were someone who could sensibly debate this. At any rate, I can see I need to bone up on my geology a bit.

[jonesthecurl]

NO: you bone up on paleontology. Geology rocks.