Mud from rivers into the oceans

[BigBallinStalin]

[Frigidus]

That's what science has to say: 'make up the answer that suits you'.

Just out of curiosity, do you only take this stance against science when it disagrees with your religious beliefs or are you opposed to it in general?

[mrswdk]

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning

i.e. You want to selectively interpret scientific terminology in order to fit whatever theory you're trying to prove, in just the same way as chiro selectively interprets science to fit his theological monologue. Something you explicitly criticized him for. Spectacular.

[Frigidus]

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning

i.e. You want to selectively interpret scientific terminology in order to fit whatever theory you're trying to prove, in just the same way as chiro selectively interprets science to fit his theological monologue. Something you explicitly criticized him for. Spectacular.

You are putting far too much weight in terminology. The important part of science is the way it explains things, not the words that we use to describe the way it explains things. If the underlying concepts were inconsistent you'd have an argument.

[Metsfanmax]

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning

i.e. You want to selectively interpret scientific terminology in order to fit whatever theory you're trying to prove, in just the same way as chiro selectively interprets science to fit his theological monologue. Something you explicitly criticized him for. Spectacular.

This misses the point. The scientific method is about getting an objective answer to a precise enough question. If you change the meaning of the question, then the scientific answer no longer applies to your question. The important point is that the colloquial definition of continent is irrelevant to (geological) scientists. If they're working on plate tectonics, they're working on plate tectonics. No scientist would use the term 'continent' in a paper where the distinction really mattered unless they gave their specific definition.

[AndyDufresne]

This topic is starting to be a bit incontinent. I like it.


--Andy

[crispybits]

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning

i.e. You want to selectively interpret scientific terminology in order to fit whatever theory you're trying to prove, in just the same way as chiro selectively interprets science to fit his theological monologue. Something you explicitly criticized him for. Spectacular.

Careful, you're starting to use creationist logic forms with the selective quoting and attacking irrelevant strawmen. I believe the second half of the very paragraph you've quoted there (not even a separate paragraph) deals with exactly that objection. Of course you don't quote that bit...

Or, we could accept that the same word can have different and multiple meanings (some closely related, others like most of the above completely different) and use the context of what is being discussed to infer the meaning, maybe even ask the person using it to clarify which definition of the word they mean. There is no problem unless we use two different definitions/contexts within the same discussion without being clear about the difference. Funnily enough, the best example I can think of for that practice is the creationists and the word "theory". Go figure...

If we have concept X, and definitions X1, X2 and X3 for that concept, then scientifically we will state which definition of the concept we are using. I've not talked about continents at all except to talk about super-continents. Super-continents can be clearly defined as "land masses formed when all the continents join up together into one land mass" and no other definition has been relevant (it's not like we're talking about a continent bitten by a radioactive spider that has gained the ability to fly or something goofy like that). If you think I've used two different definitions of the same word within this thread leading to a fallacious logical form, please do go ahead and quote me doing so, if you can't then your argument fails and I can ignore it without any consequence to the validity of my points...

[universalchiro]

Artimis,
Are you saying that's it's impossible for the continents to break apart from Pangaea 4,500 years ago? Because I understand it seems against the grain of conventional thinking, but looking at the evidence: that there isn't enough sediment at the deltas to support rivers flowing into the Atlantic ocean older than 4,500 years ago. You can spout evolutionary doctrine, and I can spout Bible verses, but the evidence still stands as a testimony saying, "hey, if the Mississippi river was older, the sediment would be greater, and it goes with every river flowing into the ocean."

[universalchiro]

Crispybits, you said, " I have never heard of anyone, geologist or not, suggest that the way we date the Earth is by counting back the speed of continental drift to Pangea." I agree. But I'm not referencing the age of earth. I'm talking about the age of when Pangaea broke apart and the continents started to drift, by presenting evidence that is observable to all, that the sediment deposits of the deltas, is worth only 4,500 years of deposit volume, and this would indicate that the continents are not 120 million years old as geologist believe.

Scientist do take the rate of continental drift (1.5inches/year) and work backwards to get the age of the break apart from Pangaea, so you may want to reconsider. And my other contention is that there is no trail of sediment on the ocean floor as the continents drifted over the last 120 million years. this is irrefutable evidence that the rivers are newly formed. For the continents are allegedly traveling at the same rate now, that hey have always traveled. Therefore, since there are sediment deposits now on the ocean flood by the mouth of the rivers, then there would also be sediment deposits on the ocean floor as the continents traveled apart.
I'm surprised ya'll cant see this unassailable logic. This really isn't that hard. Time to think out of the box and be bold to look at the evidence yourself and think for yourself, and not just report what other gurus are saying...

My contention is that the answer is that the continents moved quickly. Are you saying it's impossible for the continents to move quickly?

[crispybits]

Crispybits, you said, " I have never heard of anyone, geologist or not, suggest that the way we date the Earth is by counting back the speed of continental drift to Pangea." I agree. But I'm not referencing the age of earth. I'm talking about the age of when Pangaea broke apart and the continents started to drift, by presenting evidence that is observable to all, that the sediment deposits of the deltas, is worth only 4,500 years of deposit volume, and this would indicate that the continents are not 120 million years old as geologist believe.

OK, see you can correct an error if you try hard enough (you did originally claim it was about the age of the earth), lets see if we can practice that some more.

By the way, you seem to have completely ignored the post I made, with a link that contained plenty of references, that shows why your contention that there is only 4500 years of deposit at the river mouth is flawed. Remember that third sentence on the image I posted? "If you can't accept that you're mistaken, then you're not doing science at all."

Scientist do take the rate of continental drift (1.5inches/year) and work backwards to get the age of the break apart from Pangaea, so you may want to reconsider. And my other contention is that there is no trail of sediment on the ocean floor as the continents drifted over the last 120 million years. this is irrefutable evidence that the rivers are newly formed. For the continents are allegedly traveling at the same rate now, that hey have always traveled. Therefore, since there are sediment deposits now on the ocean flood by the mouth of the rivers, then there would also be sediment deposits on the ocean floor as the continents traveled apart.
I'm surprised ya'll cant see this unassailable logic. This really isn't that hard. Time to think out of the box and be bold to look at the evidence yourself and think for yourself, and not just report what other gurus are saying...

A couple of things to reply to here. Firstly, scientists do not date Pangea by looking at the amount of distance and the current speed and dividing one by the other. Tectonic plate movement is not constant, over geological timespans tectonic plates do speed up and slow down and change direction and pivot and bounce around each other, and without recorded data for how fast they were going at any given time, even a miscalculation of a fraction of a millimeter per year compounds into a huge and unacceptable error. As I mentioned in my last post another method for dating Pangea would be looking at the magnetic polarity of minerals within the rocks (particularly volcanic rocks) to determine what latitude the rock was at when it cooled from molten to solid. If the rock is closer to the magnetic pole, there will be more discrepancy between the angles of polarity between one side of the rock plate and the other than if the rock was at the equator. We can also look at dormant seeds buried within different rock strata and see if they come from tropical or temperate or frigid species of plants to give us an idea of the movement of the tectonic plate over time. We can look at traces of animal remains too. There's a whole raft of different ways we can work out roughly where each plate was at any given time, and all agree with all the others, not a single one throws up any significant anomalies between different forms of evidence.

And again here you have completely ignored the evidence I posted about where the sediment ends up. Yes ocean floor currents in the deep ocean are slow, but we're talking about river mouths. Currents at the mouths of rivers are notoriously chaotic and turbulent, that's why a lot of river mouths around the world aren't viewed as safe places for swimming or pleasure boating. If you have sediment that is already suspended in river water pushed into this turbulent environment then it is illogical to assume it would all simply settle there instead of continuing to follow coastal currents or shallow depth ocean currents and be further distributed. This simple fact invalidates both your "deposits should all settle out at the mouth of the river" and "we should see trails across the sea bed" contentions. You also ignore coastal erosion of river mouth areas, where the sea is literally carrying off the entire coastline a tiny bit with every breaking wave, including the river mouth areas, and depositing them elsewhere.

My contention is that the answer is that the continents moved quickly. Are you saying it's impossible for the continents to move quickly?

My contention is that your "unassaible logic" is flawed because you have failed to consider several observable phenomena, and your dogmatic refusal to consider these phenomena means that you are not discussing this scientifically at all. Again I'd love for you to prove me wrong, just once, and take note of the evidence against your hypothesis being accurate and at least attempt to modify it in some way to account for these discrepancies. Or alternatively provide actual evidence (positive evidence, not saying "it can't have been that thing you think, therefore my hypothesis must be right" - that's an argument from ignorance fallacy) in favour of fast moving continents that can't be explained by simple geological and hydrodynamic processes like convection and erosion over long timespans.

And no, I would not and have not said that it is impossible for the continents to move quickly - I've simply said that the evidence shows us that this is not what actually happened.

[hotfire]

here is ur river sediment from over 4500 years...
http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/larson/loess.html
next topic please

[_sabotage_]

Doesn't help much, the link describes:

Loess is a geologic term that refers to deposits of silt (sediment with particles 2-64 microns in diameter) that have been laid down by wind action (aeolian activity to geologists).

And

Till is a geologic term that refers to deposits of unsorted and unstratified sediment deposited by a glacier.

Missing the river sediment.

[hotfire]

wow u read the shortest paragraphs..try reading it again with the bigger paragraphs included..perhaps u could read it slower as that might help ur processing also

[Artimis]

Artimis,
Are you saying that's it's impossible for the continents to break apart from Pangaea 4,500 years ago? Because I understand it seems against the grain of conventional thinking, but looking at the evidence: that there isn't enough sediment at the deltas to support rivers flowing into the Atlantic ocean older than 4,500 years ago. You can spout evolutionary doctrine, and I can spout Bible verses, but the evidence still stands as a testimony saying, "hey, if the Mississippi river was older, the sediment would be greater, and it goes with every river flowing into the ocean."

I would not say it is impossible, but I would point to the glaring lack of evidence to support this. If the tectonic plates were really moving at such speeds that they could separate Pangea and redistribute the landmasses as they are seen today then something SHOULD show up in the geological record. Also there is the complete lack of evidence to support this in ancient maps made 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago and even 2,000 years ago. Again I point to my example of Alexander crossing into India by land and not by boat. And don't get me started on the Vikings!

Before you suggest that the separation happened in a very brief period of time, say a century or less, to make such a suggestion is madness because of the violence of the action that it would entail. This is a tectonic plate, not a racing car, think 'conservation of energy'. The amount of energy required to propel an object like a tectonic plate at those speeds is monstrous and I can't fit than many zeros inside my head! At the very least the climate record would be schoodaley with all that extra energy kicking around in the form of waste heat. The effect of India slamming into Eurasia at such grossly improbable speed also raises the issue or why it was not recorded in early religious texts(if not early scholarly texts of the time), along with more substantial paleological anomalies, marine animal and vegetation from 4,500 years ago preserved somewhere in the Himalayas.

There are too many holes here and no evidence to fill them all.

[universalchiro]

Artimis,
I understand your view, you are looking at the overwhelming evidence to support your view, you mean the volumes of evolutionist that produce books and peer review journals for other evolutionist to approve and your telling me that's the evidence your talking about... I get it, but don't you think that is like me referencing other young earth creationist scientist that adhere to my view? Whether you want to believe it, you are doing the very same thing that drives evolutionist crazy when creationist do the same.

So look with your own eyes. Look at the lack of sediment. This is glaring evidence that is screaming that these rivers are not older than 4500 years of age. And since there isn't any sediment trail on the ocean floor as the tectonic (continents) shifted then this screams the tectonic plates moved quickly at one time. Potentially from Pangaea to close to current position in approximately 1 year. Would this be a lot of energy? Of course, just look at the Himalayas and we know that something very fierce caused mountains to be forced upwards against gravity. The Bible describes how God at the time of the flood caused water to burst violently out of the earth. And He raised the mountains and lowered the valleys to set borders for the flood after the 40 days and night of rain.

Remember, the people you are referencing as your source, were not there and they are conjecturing and they believe in an old earth. You believe in a hypothesis, not fact. So don't be so quick to defend dogmatically. The evidence that is before our eyes indicates young rivers and recent quick movements of tectonic plates (continents).

[AndyDufresne]

Somehow it is hard to reconcile that river agriculture associated with flood plains was around before there were rivers.

Naturally, UC finds it difficult to accept the age of anything over his own.

Here is a fun list of things that definitely did not occur, and thus were made up or misdated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC Feel free to keep moving back centuries.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Artimis,
I understand your view, you are looking at the overwhelming evidence to support your view, you mean the volumes of evolutionist that produce books and peer review journals for other evolutionist to approve and your telling me that's the evidence your talking about... I get it, but don't you think that is like me referencing other young earth creationist scientist that adhere to my view? Whether you want to believe it, you are doing the very same thing that drives evolutionist crazy when creationist do the same.

The difference between the 'evolutionists' and the 'creationists' is that the scientific evidence is still there for anyone to test. Even though much of scientific progress is based on implicit trust of what others have done, the reason why it is so successful in getting things right is that you can go and replicate someone else's experiment if you want. You can go and date a sample using radioactive isotopes, if you have the right equipment. You cannot do this with religious claims, which are based on things that only happened in the past and so there is no way to independently verify someone else's results. In essence, the reason I trust most scientists is that they likely eventually would have been found out if they were fabricating evidence or misinterpreting results. This is the nature of the peer-review process. The only way that something as evolution could have been gotten so fundamentally wrong is if there was a grand conspiracy across generations to ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. If the evidence is there, you should be able to produce it.

[universalchiro]

Artimis,
I understand your view, you are looking at the overwhelming evidence to support your view, you mean the volumes of evolutionist that produce books and peer review journals for other evolutionist to approve and your telling me that's the evidence your talking about... I get it, but don't you think that is like me referencing other young earth creationist scientist that adhere to my view? Whether you want to believe it, you are doing the very same thing that drives evolutionist crazy when creationist do the same.

The difference between the 'evolutionists' and the 'creationists' is that the scientific evidence is still there for anyone to test. Even though much of scientific progress is based on implicit trust of what others have done, the reason why it is so successful in getting things right is that you can go and replicate someone else's experiment if you want. You can go and date a sample using radioactive isotopes, if you have the right equipment.... the reason I trust most scientists is that they likely eventually would have been found out if they were fabricating evidence or misinterpreting results. This is the nature of the peer-review process. The only way that something as evolution could have been gotten so fundamentally wrong is if there was a grand conspiracy across generations to ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. If the evidence is there, you should be able to produce it.

Metsfanmax,
I hear ya, but one of the means of determining age, is by calculations of radioactive isotopes is a flawed system. For scientist believe that the rate of decay has always been constant. But this is false and I have already proven that in other post. And you believe without looking with your own eyes, as though what, evolutionist in the scientific field are incapable of A. making mistakes or worse, B. Falsifying their data, or C. Selectively choosing their results that supports their believe in an old earth. I have already posted several times of supposed old earth evidence that has been caught and determined a lie, sometimes 40 years after the fact. So stop believing blindly. Go look at a globe for yourself that reveals the ocean floor. Study the river deltas, . Think... if the tectonic plates are moving the continents 1.5 inches per year and supposedly ocean currents are washing away all the sediment that would have left a trail, then why does the mouth of rivers have sediment deltas to begin with?

The evidence is right before your eyes. Stop going to old earth evolutionist that are positioned in life as scientist to peddle their preconceived belief system to the masses. Look for yourselves. The truth will set you free.

[Metsfanmax]

Artimis,
I understand your view, you are looking at the overwhelming evidence to support your view, you mean the volumes of evolutionist that produce books and peer review journals for other evolutionist to approve and your telling me that's the evidence your talking about... I get it, but don't you think that is like me referencing other young earth creationist scientist that adhere to my view? Whether you want to believe it, you are doing the very same thing that drives evolutionist crazy when creationist do the same.

The difference between the 'evolutionists' and the 'creationists' is that the scientific evidence is still there for anyone to test. Even though much of scientific progress is based on implicit trust of what others have done, the reason why it is so successful in getting things right is that you can go and replicate someone else's experiment if you want. You can go and date a sample using radioactive isotopes, if you have the right equipment.... the reason I trust most scientists is that they likely eventually would have been found out if they were fabricating evidence or misinterpreting results. This is the nature of the peer-review process. The only way that something as evolution could have been gotten so fundamentally wrong is if there was a grand conspiracy across generations to ignore evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. If the evidence is there, you should be able to produce it.

Metsfanmax,
I hear ya, but one of the means of determining age, is by calculations of radioactive isotopes is a flawed system. For scientist believe that the rate of decay has always been constant. But this is false and I have already proven that in other post.

You didn't prove that, you just asserted that a non-constant rate of tectonic plate motion is 'in harmony' with a non-constant rate of radioactive decay. There's no physical reason to believe that these rates are connected. Every measurement of these rates reveals more or less the same number for each isotope, and if you want to plausibly assert that the rate could have been much faster a couple thousand years ago, you'd need to demonstrate a physical mechanism that could do this. Otherwise you're just relying on the argument that God sped up the decay rates to make it look like the Earth is older than it actually is (why would this be?). In other words, you're not proving the decay rates are changing with time; you're just starting from some other assumption about the way the world works, and then dictating scientific results from there. This is dangerous when it comes to scientific thinking.

And you believe without looking with your own eyes, as though what, evolutionist in the scientific field are incapable of A. making mistakes or worse, B. Falsifying their data, or C. Selectively choosing their results that supports their believe in an old earth.

Well, the age of the Earth really has nothing to do with whether evolution is correct or not.

I have already posted several times of supposed old earth evidence that has been caught and determined a lie, sometimes 40 years after the fact. So stop believing blindly. Go look at a globe for yourself that reveals the ocean floor. Study the river deltas, . Think... if the tectonic plates are moving the continents 1.5 inches per year and supposedly ocean currents are washing away all the sediment that would have left a trail, then why does the mouth of rivers have sediment deltas to begin with?

There are lots of possible reasons, though I'm no expert. For example, what if I say that about 4,500 years ago, God stopped the ocean currents so that the sediments would build up, so that he could convince us the world is really younger than we all thought? He certainly seems capricious enough to do this.

[crispybits]

UC seeing as you've either missed or flat ignored my last post, there's 2 main things I would like for you to answer:

1) Is there any positive evidence that the continents ever moved as quickly as you suggest that cannot be explained easily by the current model? Even if we were to agree that the current model is flawed for whatever reason (and we don't) you still need to provide some evidence for your model. That evidence needs to present as something that would not fit the current model at all. No trails of sediment across ocean floors does not count, that is negative evidence and can be explained easily by the current model. Similar for the perceived shortage of sediment at the mouths of rivers. The way science works is that you present your hypothesis, and then you present the evidence you think supports it. Not the evidence that you think disproves something else and then assume that your model must therefore be true. (I could, for example, present a number of problems with viewing duck billed platypus as a mammal, most obvious of which would be that it lays eggs. I cannot use those problems to assert that it is a reptile, for that I need positive evidence that it would fit that classification.)

2) River mouths are chaotic and turbulent places, which is why we do not regard them as safe places to go swimming or sail around in in small pleasure craft. There are variable currents, eddies, undertows, etc etc. If we have sediment suspended in river water, and that water feeds into one of these chaotic areas, why do you assume that all of the sediment will settle out of the water there, and not stay suspended and be carried further away again by oceanic currents that can be very strong along coastlines? Also, do you not accept that coastlines, including river mouths, are subject to erosion, and so during each year a portion of the sediment that has settled out in or around the river mouth will be worn away and moved again by erosion?

[Artimis]

Artimis,
I understand your view, you are looking at the overwhelming evidence to support your view, you mean the volumes of evolutionist that produce books and peer review journals for other evolutionist to approve and your telling me that's the evidence your talking about... I get it, but don't you think that is like me referencing other young earth creationist scientist that adhere to my view? Whether you want to believe it, you are doing the very same thing that drives evolutionist crazy when creationist do the same.

So look with your own eyes. Look at the lack of sediment. This is glaring evidence that is screaming that these rivers are not older than 4500 years of age. And since there isn't any sediment trail on the ocean floor as the tectonic (continents) shifted then this screams the tectonic plates moved quickly at one time. Potentially from Pangaea to close to current position in approximately 1 year. Would this be a lot of energy? Of course, just look at the Himalayas and we know that something very fierce caused mountains to be forced upwards against gravity. The Bible describes how God at the time of the flood caused water to burst violently out of the earth. And He raised the mountains and lowered the valleys to set borders for the flood after the 40 days and night of rain.

Remember, the people you are referencing as your source, were not there and they are conjecturing and they believe in an old earth. You believe in a hypothesis, not fact. So don't be so quick to defend dogmatically. The evidence that is before our eyes indicates young rivers and recent quick movements of tectonic plates (continents).

I'm not surprised that no sediment is found from the Nile or from the Amazon or any river for that matter that dates back no further than 4,500 years. Sedimentary rock(Sandstone, Limestone and Shale), I mentioned this in my first post in this thread back on page 11, along with water currents. Sedimentary rock is formed by success layers of silt being laid down, the bottom most layers are pressed together by the increasing weight of the new layers laid down with the passage of time. Therefore, your sediment is not sediment any more. This site seems informative, try http://www.rocksandminerals4u.com/sedimentary_rocks.html

Then there is the interference from living organisms, constantly digging up material and recycling it as it has been since life first emerged on planet Earth. That's why finding an intact dinosaur corpse is so incredibly, vanishingly slim beyond reason. Just because we can't find the flesh that used to cover the dinosaur's bones does not mean that it wondered the Earth with a naked skeleton, in the same way that not being able to find sediment older than 4,500 years does not directly equate to Pangea separating a mere 4,500 years ago.

The reason I bring up the subject of energy is because heat is a by-product of all energy exchanges no matter how small or large or the type of the energy transfer, some heat is always emitted. So I draw your attention again to the unimaginably vast amount of energy required to 1)accelerate the various tectonic plates with their associated landmasses in their various directions and 2)the equally vast amount of friction that would have resulted from the rubbing together of such titanic rocky egg shell pieces as they would appear compared to the vast reservoir of molten rock and metal beneath that comprise the mantel and the core of the Earth. Where is the corresponding elevated temperatures in the climate record to show this? Anything in the tree rings? Anything in the Arctic/Antarctic ice cores?

Show me something, don't just tell me there is no sediment older than 4,500 and leave it at that.

[mrswdk]

Atheist logic: it's okay to make blanket, improvable statements based on science (e.g. the theories of evolution and the Big Bang) but not to make blanket, improvable statements based on theology (e.g. the theory of divine creation).

[Frigidus]

improvable statements based on science

While there is next to nothing that can be proven with 100% certainty, something can not be considered science if there is no evidence backing its statements. Sometimes the evidence is fairly conclusive (laws of motion, germ theory, evolution) and sometimes it is the best explanation we have with our limited perspective and evidence (big bang being a good example).

Religious thought on the other hand starts from the assumption that a certain text/tradition is correct and seeks to fit reality to it.

[chang50]

[quote="mrswdk"]Atheist logic: it's okay to make blanket, improvable statements based on science (e.g. the theories of evolution and the Big Bang) but not to make blanket, improvable statements based on theology (e.g. the theory of divine creation).[/quot

Do you mean unprovable,as improvable means something quite different?

[crispybits]

Atheist logic: it's okay to make blanket, improvable statements based on science (e.g. the theories of evolution and the Big Bang) but not to make blanket, improvable statements based on theology (e.g. the theory of divine creation).

Lets view that statement again, but substitute in the definitions of theolgy and science...

Atheist logic: it's okay to make blanket, unprovable statements based on the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment (e.g. the theories of evolution and the Big Bang) but not to make blanket, unprovable statements based on the study of the nature of God and religious belief (e.g. the theory of divine creation).

Actually you can make blanket statements based on theology, they just aren't statements about physics or biology or whatnot, they are statements about religious belief and the nature of God. It's not blanket statements that are the problem in this case, it's trying to use theology to make blanket statements about things that aren't the nature of God or religious belief. For example I could make the statement that religious belief is based entirely on faith (i.e. belief without proof) and normally follows a personal epiphany experience and that would be perfectly valid. Trying to make a blanket statement based on theology about something outside of the remit of the nature of God or religious belief is like a basketball coach making statements about how good a football team's players are based on the rules of basketball and it gives you ridiculous results.