young earth Creationism .. again

[Neoteny]

THE DEBATE IS OVER...

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

The word evolution can be defined a number of ways and we really should get into definition maybe.

Can you refer me to where you already defined it if you did somewhere? What isn't irrevelant in a conversation regarding whether or not evolution occured if a definition of the word evolution is irrevelant?

There might be little to no one who denies that creatures bring forth variety. But, I don't have the best idea about where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been in the first place maybe. You might have suggested that you were open to there having been multiple origins earlier.

Fossils. There have been progression of species and changes in flora and fauna many times perhaps. Consider even chihuahuas and great danes and pit bulls and poodles maybe. Creatures actually bring forth variety at a pretty quick pace perhaps.

Geology. There have been trees and animals and more found connecting sedimentary strata and it will be a futile struggle for you to try to use sedimentary layers as evidence for something existing over 7,000 years ago with me maybe. What's actually used to date sedimentary layers not counting index fossils themselves?

Also, the granites are considered earth's foundation rocks and I'm not aware of granite with polonium halos ever being produced in a human laboratory perhaps.

http://www.halos.com/

Natural Selection. Natural selection very much happens perhaps. It might be easy for people to speak past eachother.

Genetics. Things have brought forth variety and it would make sense if He went from creating one kind of creature to creating another kind of creature without starting from scratch also perhaps. Should we not expect for dogs to have a closer relationship to cats than fish as far as genetics is concerned whether or not they share common ancestry?

Chemistry. Chemical compositions of things do help reveal origins of things maybe. There are polonium halos in granite that clearly suggest that a sea of primordial matter quickly froze into solid granite in the past perhaps.

Radiometric Dating. If you come across a room with a lit candle and you measure a height of seven inches and measure a burning rate of one inch per hour for the candle, you're not going to know an original height of it or if it has always burned at the same rate as a result of that perhaps. And 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? We have already discussed carbon-14 dating and should move on the uranium-lead dating as an example maybe. If we are going to go try to use that to date a rock, we are not going to know if the rock was created with lead already it in even if we assume there's been a constant rate at which uranium decays into lead perhaps. If we are going to approach scientific studies with an assumption that earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles randomly coming together and that happens to not be the case, then a serious amount of stuff is going to be thrown out of whack for us maybe. And there happens to be an interesting flip side to uranium-lead dating in particular maybe... uranium decays and produces helium-4 as a by-product and there's an amount of helium-4 on earth that indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay perhaps.

You referred to stuff that at least basically claims that radiometric dating is backed up by tree rings and glacier ice core layers maybe. Dendrochronology is actually used to calibrate carbon-14 dating in the first place and they are not mutually dependant dating methods perhaps. Also, there are ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland that have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet maybe. An aircraft crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and was excavated in 1990 and was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years maybe. 14,000 divided by 263 equals 53.23 rounded off and 53.23 multiplied by 48 equals less than 3,000 perhaps. 3,000? Hmm. Is there any glacier ice on earth that's over 5,000 years old?



The Flood. I don't have the best idea about where you stand in regards to the flood in the first place maybe. You might have suggested that you believed in it and suggested that you did not believe in it.

What would you consider to be undisputable evidence for a single world-wide flood? I've already referred to physical processes that match up with physical evidence and have already poked holes in one or more official theory perhaps.

You claim the Morrison Formation is from the Jurassic and claim that has been shown through radiographic dating, studies of fossils and knowledge of how formations were created maybe. First, what does radiographic dating having to do with dating rock? Did you mean radiometric? You might want to see a radiometric dating section above. If you claim it's been shown through studies of fossils and knowledge of how formations were created, can you explain what you mean? Fossils are dated by sedimentary layers themselves and occasionally by radiometric dating maybe. And you mean to claim that knowledge of how certain formations were created is used to determine how the formations were created? That would be an illogical assertion maybe.

Not sure what you read in terms of scripture maybe, but Genesis 7:11 straight up refers to fountains of the great deep perhaps.

You provided text concerning the Ogallala Aquifer that makes adamant claims without backing them up and you even subtly suggested you were concerned about it afterwards by claiming that to show why the text is believed to be true takes a good deal of time and study perhaps. I got serious amounts of time maybe. The deposition of the aquifer material dates back 2 to 6 million years according to what?

You want an ounce of explanation for how something could possibly be true? What, if so?

Does this show a crater that was caused by a natural randomly shaped meteor if you had to guess?



Maybe we shouldn't expect a wyojones site to say a geyser is a leftover of a 5000 year old surge of water from the earth whether there's one that is or not.

It took an immense amount of time to smooth out Snake River Plain according to what if you claim it did?

You want stuff on the Channeled Scablands and Great Salt Lake and Monument Valley and Rainbow Bridge (not sure if RB is technically part of Monument Valley or not perhaps) and Petrified Forest National Park and Grand Canyon and the Algodones Dunes?

The Channeled Scablands were created by cataclysmic flooding even according to wikipedia perhaps. There might be some long ago and far away type fairy tale nonsense included having to do with a mythological time known as the Pleistocene epoch, but people are taught from grade school up that earth is millions of years old and the result of a random distribution of dust particles coming together and faulty assumptions have led to faulty science perhaps.

The Great Salt Lake is a straight up saltwater ocean complete with seagulls and shrimp that's stuck in mountaneous terrain out west perhaps. What's there to say about it? Wikipedia makes mention of the Pleistocene epoch in an article for it also and claims it used to be part of a body of water that covered much of present day Utah maybe.

Wikipedia actually calls on meandering rivers to explain Monument Valley maybe. What does this have to do with a meandering river?



Note: You can see one or more road there that can be mistaken for a river perhaps. You might be able to see a car though. Here's another image and text that refers to it below maybe.

Figure 118: Mesas, Buttes, and Spires. Monument Valley, on the Arizona-Utah border, is the most famous location in the world for mesas, buttes, and spires. These features, also abundant over thousands of square miles surrounding Monument Valley, are inside the basin that held Grand Lake, a lake that existed for probably a few centuries after the flood. The long cliff spanning the horizon marks a small part of Grand Lake’s boundary. As Grand Lake spilled and began carving the Grand Canyon 100–250 miles to the southwest of Monument Valley, groundwater surged upward through the lower portions of the lake floor and carried off the material that once connected these stark and magnificent land forms. All were carved in weeks. Since Grand Lake drained a few thousand years ago, weathering has produced the piles of debris at the base of each mesa, butte, and spire.

Mesas, Buttes, and Spires. No land features symbolize the American Southwest more than mesas, buttes, and spires. [See Figure 118.] A mesa, which means table in Spanish, is a flat-topped feature, formed by erosion, which rises on all sides above the surrounding terrain. A mesa is wider than it is tall.49 A butte is similar, but its height exceeds its width. A very slender butte is a spire.

The towering walls of these formations are strikingly vertical. How and when did they form? Two dramatically different choices are proposed—millions of years or several weeks.50 Why are buttes and spires concentrated in Grand Lake’s basin? There, adjacent buttes contain corresponding horizontal layers at the same level, showing that they were once connected. What removed the huge volume of sediments between the buttes, and where did the sediments go? The perimeters of buttes are not streamlined, but scalloped and irregular, so streams did not carve them. (Besides, rivers and streams do not meander enough or flow in circles—a necessary first step if rivers carved buttes.) Nor did wind carve these features, because large sand dunes are missing. What happened?

Beneath Grand Lake’s basin today is a 1,400-foot-thick layer of sandstone. When Grand Lake was present, that sand was uncemented and saturated with water. Sand grains are hard and somewhat rounded, so water-saturated sand layers contain about 40% water by volume. As the lake emptied, the relatively large channels between these grains allowed the high-pressure water under Grand Lake to rapidly discharge upward,51 through the lowest portions of the lake bottom—the easiest routes of escape. With those upward torrents of high-pressure water came swirling sand and dirt that was quickly swept out of Grand Lake and down through the Grand Canyon, which was forming 100–250 miles to the southwest. The highest portions of the lake bottom, including islands, offered the greatest resistance to the upward-surging flow; consequently, those high regions remained intact. Cliffs (along some of the lake boundaries) and mesas and buttes (internal to the lake) began to take shape.

Imagine sitting on the bottom of a shallow swimming pool. Your head barely sticks out of the water and, therefore, is an island. You exert little pressure on the bottom of the pool, because your body is buoyed up by the surrounding water pressure. (Such buoyancy is commonly called Archimedes’ principle.) In other words, you almost float. Suddenly, someone pulls the plug, and the pool rapidly drains; now your entire weight presses against the floor of the pool. Had you been a newly forming butte resting on the floor of the rapidly draining Grand Lake, you would quickly press down on 1,400 feet of water-saturated sediments. It would be as if, over a period of weeks, a 250,000,000-ton rock, with only a 1/4-square-mile base, settled down on a water-saturated, 1,400-foot-thick sponge. Water would surge upward and erode the sides of the rock, making the butte slender, its perimeter scalloped, and its walls vertical. The banks of Grand Lake, now quite high, would also increase the pressure on the 1,400 feet of water directly below. If that water could escape upward, a bank segment would become a cliff. (Under special conditions, a relatively few mesas and buttes formed beyond Grand Lake as the flood waters drained from the earth.)

Rainbow Bridge is a natural land bridge that's the result of water carving out loose sediment from the bed of a massive body of water after it overflowed to help carve Grand Canyon also maybe. Bodies of water were drained to carve Grand Canyon and certain sections of sediment were already cemented in basins of them before they drained maybe.

Petrified Forest National Park is just to the east of Grand Canyon and exists in the bed of an ancient body of water that was used to help carve Grand Canyon also maybe.

Water from the Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at 2,800 feet or so above sea level and yet the Grand Canyon has a top elevation of 6,900 or so feet maybe.

There's snow here that helps points out elevation and that tells a tale worth taking notice of perhaps.



When do rivers flow uphill? What suggests it was carved and then geologic activity lifted part of it 4,000 or so feet higher than the rest afterwards? Is there not even mainstream geology that claims it was formed in the last one-thousanth of earth's history? It's a washed out spillway that was created as a result of two natural dams being breached and two massive bodies of water coming together to help carve it afterwards maybe.



It receives relatively little rain perhaps... should there not be Grand Canyons scattered across the earth if it simply happens to be a massive canyon that was carved by the Colorado over millions of years?

Here's a number of images showing California's Imperial Sand Dunes perhaps.



They're to the south of where the Grand Canyon ends and are between it and the Gulf of California maybe. Want to know where they come from?

California’s Imperial Sand Dunes. About 2.5 cubic miles of sand, the largest sand dunes in California, extend for more than 40 miles in a valley between the Salton Sea and Yuma, Arizona. In his geology textbook, Richard Flint estimates that wind slowly blew all that sand in over “at least 160,000 years.”62 He does not explain the source of the sand or how it was produced, why wind deposited the sand there and not elsewhere, or why little dirt was blown in. So often, geological explanations substitute vast time periods for evidence and mechanisms. Some individuals (and often the media) think they are hearing a scientific explanation, are impressed, and repeat those stories. But there is a complete explanation with abundant scientific evidence.

Not sure if there should be a gap between these or not maybe.

The sudden breaching of Grand and Hopi Lakes spilled water through the Grand Canyon, then south, between Arizona and California (the path now occupied by the Colorado River). That surge into the Gulf of California also flooded the long, Yuma-Salton valley that extends northwest of Yuma. Water quickly filled that valley, because its entire length is about 2,000 feet lower than the Colorado River as it exits the Grand Canyon, and much of the valley is below today’s sea level. Within the relatively stagnant water temporarily filling the valley, sand (as opposed to mud and clay) would have quickly settled out of its waters. [See Endnote 5 on page 211 to recall how gritty the Colorado River is.] After the flooding Colorado River crested at the southeast end of the valley, most of the valley’s waters would have drained back into the Colorado River and ultimately into the Gulf of California. Left behind in the valley were the shifting Imperial Sand Dunes and the Salton Basin. Today, that basin is filled by the Salton Sea whose surface is about 220 feet below sea level.

Mud settles slowly out of standing water. Because little mud lies in the California dunes area, the valley was probably filled with water only briefly. (Most of the mud that did settle was swept out of the valley by draining waters.) This is consistent with the few weeks I estimate it took to carve the Grand Canyon.

What's there to say about the Morrison Formation? It's smack dab in the middle of out west and is a fertile source for fossils and it's composed of mudstone, sandstone, siltstone and limestone that was laid down as a result of the flood maybe.

I already sent this and yet there are questions in it that you did not answer perhaps...

These all show upstream from the Grand Canyon or an actual starting point of the Grand Canyon or both perhaps. See a main funneled canyon and also a smaller canyon that the Colorado River sits in? How about provide a theory on where each came from if so? Note: You should look closely towards top right of a fourth image below perhaps.









Do you claim that the Colorado itself carved out both canyons in the first if you see two canyons in the first? Well, see a white dot here?



It's marking one or more thing shown here perhaps...



A type of pothole is shown that forms when whirling rocks caught in an eddy or vortex of a fast-flowing stream grind down carving a cylindrical depression perhaps. If there was not rapidly flowing water 6,654 feet above sea level on top of Echo Cliffs, then what is shown there?

You 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? Well, fountains of the great deep did not burst forth just anywhere and most water came from places that are now known as oceanic ridges maybe. Does anything suggest to you that there should be a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition if that's the case?

You refer to stuff under a title of Bryce Canyon Geology that starts off with Long ago as the first two words and if you see that starting off a collection of words then you should be especially weary of them being followed by a fairy tale maybe.

This shows Inspiration Point of Bryce Canyon perhaps...



Now you should guess where this is maybe...



This might be able to help you get a better idea...



Are there millions of years of erosion represented there or here?



This shows the side of a highway and is from a photo that was taken just a bit after it was built perhaps...





I'm referring to this again for very valid reasons perhaps...



Bryce Canyon does have different layers with very different compositions and so does stuff in a left image above perhaps. Where's evidence of erosion between layers if there's a photograph to the right with millions of years of layers represented? You referred to gullies or scars that have been carved onto the outside of one or more formation as opposed to actual strata shown maybe. Are there not almost perfectly horizontal lines of strata shown? If layers representing millions of years are shown and yet there are not canyons or gullies or cricks in-between the layers, then what's up with that? Did layers lay out one at a time for millions of years without receiving marks from erosion?

There's much more evidence for the flood than you realize maybe.

There's been an analysis of 600 or so individual flood traditions that revealed widespread concurrence on essential points including prior corruption of mankind and a flood warning unheeded by masses and a survival vessel and the preservation of up to eight people with representative animal life and sending forth of a bird to determine suitability of reemerging land and significance in the rainbow and descent from a mountain and re-population of the earth from a single group of survivors and Noah has even been called Nu-u in Hawaii and Nuh in Sudan and Nu-Wah in China and Noa in the Amazon region and Noe in Phrygia and Noh and Hiagnoh among the Hottentons perhaps.





And is there not evidence that there were societies built over ones that were more technologically advanced (in Mesopotamia and Egypt and Lebanon areas at least?) and was there not saltwater evidence found inside and outside of the great pyramid and is there not water erosion on the sphinx statue and are there not mysterious unnatural structures located located across the earth including underwater in Bimini and is there not evidence that a major disaster ravaged various places including Teotihuacan and are there not Olmec statue heads with black dude type features and are there not fossil remains of marine creatures that can be found on the Sierras and the Swiss Alps and the Himalayas 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 and is there not even evidence that remains of the ark itself were found by Ron Wyatt?

Here's remains of the ark and it's a bit off Mt. Ararat and right in or next to a village called The Village of Eight perhaps.







Measurements and radar scans back it up perhaps.







It even has ribs that can clearly be seen with the naked eye perhaps.













Also, an ancient altar and drogue stones including some with crosses carved on them and more has been found nearby perhaps.













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.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm

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



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?

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.

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?

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

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?

You yourself suggested index fossils themselves are the main tool used to determine where geologic layers date to maybe. How about consider these and ask yourself what trilobites have to do with the words index and fossils.



Trilobites are still alive now perhaps.





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?

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?

Are you trying to claim that Gary Parker and Stephen Gould are young earth creationists?

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.

Dinosaurs. What's shown here?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=450

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?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3806

Did Marco Polo not even claim a Chinese Emperor had a number of dragons which were used to pull his chariots in parades? Do Herodotus, Josephus, Aelian, Mela, Ammianus, Esarhaddon's inscription, anonymous 4'th century Coptic monks, the 13'th century Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa and more not all attest the existence of flying reptiles? Does the Aberdeen Bestiary not clearly refer to one or more dinosaur? Is there not a city in France called Nerluc that was renamed in honor of a dragon with a horned head being killed there? Are dragons not mentioned as very rare but still living creatures in a 16th century four-volume encyclopedia entitled Historiae Animalium?

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/history/history.htm

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? I already said this in response to one or more assertion by you having to do with Chinese history perhaps, but you have avoided addressing it up to now maybe...

The Xia Dynasty of China started quite a bit less than 4,000 years ago and there is even disagreement regarding the actual existence of it according to wikipedia perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Hi ... 600_BCE.29

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.

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.

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? Note: I left out the word ago in error earlier maybe.

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?

You yourself are in opposition to mainstream evolutionary theory if you claim that gill wielding fish did not evolve lungs used for breathing outside of water and become non-fish over the course of some number of generations maybe.

How about I stick to something you refer to as the topic? If there's a THE topic and it's not young earth creationism, then what is it? And what do you have against discussing the moon?

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.

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.

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.

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?



Is there really any need at all to get into origins in a public school? 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. You might claim mainstream evolutionary theory does not say humans evolved from a rock, but do you not hold that earth hardened into a spheriod with a hard rocky crust and hold that an original single cell organism later sprouted from somewhere on earth?

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?

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. 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?

You might be confusing the word ape with one or more other word. Humans did evolve from apes according to mainstream evolutionary theory perhaps. You might even find some who claim that humans technically are apes.

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.







Did you yourself not even just refer to stuff claiming that the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000? From 13% to 79% with Roe vs. Wade even falling between 1950 and 2000!? WOW! You actually back me up without realzing it maybe. Also, do you mean to suggest condoms or birth control or both make it okay for unmarried teens to have sex?

Can you explain what you meant by this if you said this...

If you read what I wrote, then why do you insist on copying these pictures over and over again?

You said one or more thing in a 4/20/2010 8:54 am EST post that has since been deleted and that led me to refer to a image having to do with Ambulocetus again maybe. You actually deleted Quite a bit of stuff from a 4/20/2010 8:54 am EST post on page 16 perhaps.

How could the Father have created earth in a split second without you feeling as though it looked old if He could have somehow?

Did you say sill tangest and mean silly tangent? Would turbidites really be a silly tangest in a discussion regarding how old earth is?

Can you explain what you meant by this if you said this...

If one happened that recently, we should see evidence because the landforms have not changed that significantly.

Who knows what happened to landforms over 4,000 years ago?

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.

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.

Maybe the word fast is relative, but how about go look in a forest and see how hard it is to find a soft log well into a decomposition process? When do trees petrify without being rapidly buried in a high salt solution?

You actually claim that cellulose is not a sugar and ask a question in a joking manner having to do with me giving wood as a treat to kids? Not all sugar is candy meant for humans to eat perhaps. How about check this out and get back to me on it?

http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senes ... lose.shtml

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.

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?

What could paleosols do to explain a 30 foot petrified tree with a top and bottom in different coal seams dated thousands of different years in age?

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? 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.

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.

If you just heard about a theory concerning original kinds being at a genus or family level for the first time within the last couple weeks or so, does that mean that it's a new theory? Can you name anyone who has ever claimed that Noah brought chihuahuas on the ark?

Who utterly ignores a vast variety of plants and animals existing on earth?

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.

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?

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?

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

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

You claim one or more specific individual cannot truly explain away all the evidence that exists for something? What evidence do you refer to if so and how much do you expect to be addressed in a single answersingenesis article if you refer to one?

What's wrong with showing that similarity in shape and design can be viewed as evidence for a common designer if you are criticising someone for doing that? Whether there are believers in Him who believe in a mainstream evolutionary theory or not?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Are you trying to argue that RNA transcription errors can lead to there being new genes?

You try to suggest there is deceit having to do with taking advantage of a lack of understanding on antibiotic resistance when you yourself have a lack of understanding concerning it or Helicobacter pylori specifically or both maybe. Is there not a mutation that has led to some Helicobacter pylori not being able to make an enzyme which reacts with an antibiotic converting it into a poison?

There was a single quote from a book written by Lee Spetner and you go off with seven or so paragraphs having to do with him personally and end by suggesting a misleading tactic was employed having to do with someone quoting someone without that individual completely agreeing with them maybe.

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?

What's an outright lie and distortion that's been presented as if it were truth? And what's a truth that has been proven yet denied by young earthers? You're trigger happy in a throw out accusations without backing them up type sense maybe.

If you looked at a slideshow referred to by me and all you saw was a series of slides of voyages and works Darwin's plus some things I have already said, then you did not look at much of the slideshow maybe.

You refer to one or more slide having to do with wolves, coyotes, dogs, and bananas that helps point out one or more flaw in evolutionary type thinking maybe. Darwin observed a variety of finches and came away with a conclusion that they had a common ancestor? All finches do have a common ancestor perhaps... one or more common ancestor who was already a bird perhaps. Would seeing different breeds of dogs and then jumping to a conclusion that dogs and bananas share common ancestry not be an example of a leap of logic and faith?

I have to show proof that something could be true if I'm going to present an alternative theory to something? Did you say proof and mean evidence?

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

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.

What about the first quote on page 18 or whatever ignores known physical processes? You're trigger happy in regards to making bold accusations without backing them up perhaps.

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.

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...

























I might not be the clearest speaker or the easiest to understand speaker though... you should really consider spending over 30 minutes reading stuff on pages from here sometime maybe...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... view2.html

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

What's an ignorant argument made by me whether you feel I am pushing atheists away from something or not? I've actually already gotten a couple of positive PMs having to do with this including at least one that suggests I led someone to reconsider views on Him perhaps.

I don't watch any video and pretty much just accept what is said maybe. You actually admit to doing that? Maybe we should be extremely careful in regards to who and what we trust even if we're watching a video and we think it backs up a personal worldview of us.

Note: I messed up one or more image in here with uploading related stuff possibly. Also, there are words in here that are not my own depending on definition at least and there are hyperlinks removed from quotes in here and there are numbers in one or more quote in here that should be raised up higher and smaller and I'm misquoting in here maybe... you might want to check here...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... nyon5.html

[PLAYER57832]

That post is pretty long. I am not done going through it, but here is the first part.

PLAYER,

The word evolution can be defined a number of ways and we really should get into definition maybe. Can you refer me to where you already defined it if you did somewhere?

I have defined this several times already! Usually this is among the first questions you try to ask.
The term "evolution" can be used to refer to almost any kind of change over time. However, the theory of Evolution refers specifically to a set of ideas regarding the origin of life and expansion into the full diversity of life. The overall theory is explained pretty well in Wikkipeadia:

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2]
link to full article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

What isn't irrevelant in a conversation regarding whether or not evolution occured if a definition of the word evolution is irrevelant?

I never said the definition of evolution was irrelevant, I said that what young earth creationist try to claim is the definition for a theory to which they don't even subscribe is irrelevant. It's like letting atheists define God.

Although the term evolution can be used broadly, young earther's attempts to claim this theory means everything from the Big Bang and the initial creation of the earth, neither of which have very firm evidence (note the difference, though, between the words "very firm evidence" and "no evidence".. they have evidence, but no where near that backing Evolution) is yet another attempt to muddy the definitions to their own ends. By claiming the admittedly shakey theories regarding creation are tied to evolution, the attempt is to claim that the entire theory is shakey.

Young earth creationist theories are "bottom up" theories, based on what they belief the Bible says. Evoltuion, by contrast, is based on what is seen, observed and tested. It is a theory that fits the evidence, beginning with recent evidence and then going back.

There might be little to no one who denies that creatures bring forth variety. But, I don't have the best idea about where you stand in regards to how many origins there have been in the first place maybe. You might have suggested that you were open to there having been multiple origins earlier.

I have not said, because it is irrelevant. Any idea about whether it was just one or many beginning life forms that were created is just theory. The idea presented is that if one chain of protein could combine into life, it is likely that more did so at the same time (or under the same conditions, anyway). Whether it was multiple instances of the same life or actually different types of life is another question and how many of those might have survived and evolved is yet another.

At any rate, God used evolution to get from the beginning to the full-blown plants and animals which we see.

Fossils. There have been progression of species and changes in flora and fauna many times perhaps. Consider even chihuahuas and great danes and pit bulls and poodles maybe. Creatures actually bring forth variety at a pretty quick pace perhaps.

I addressed this several times already.
A. species can adapt "relatively" quickly in highly changing environments. We are likely in such a time right now. Even so, the speed is not that which would be required for young earth theories to be true.

B. Going from a wolf to Great Dane and a poodle is quite different from going from a little tiny early mammal to giraffes and wolves, each. The time involved in the latter is very long.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... onium.html
Geology. There have been trees and animals and more found connecting sedimentary strata and it will be a futile struggle for you to try to use sedimentary layers as evidence for something existing over 7,000 years ago with me maybe. What's actually used to date sedimentary layers not counting index fossils themselves?

Your claim that index fossils are used to date strata and then those strata are used to date fossils in "circular reasoning" is just wrong. I have already explained this. And, 7,000 years is a "microsecond" in geologic time.

Also, the granites are considered earth's foundation rocks and I'm not aware of granite with polonium halos ever being produced in a human laboratory perhaps.

http://www.halos.com

There is one scientist, not even a PhD, who has tried to claim this. His ideas are refuted over and over.

Here are just a few links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted
Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery
Amateur scientist John Brawley investigated Gentry's claims directly by studying local rock samples, and concluded that there is no good evidence that these "polonium" haloes are actually produced by polonium at all, as opposed to longer-lived radionuclides such as radon or uranium.


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... onium.html

There are many more, but those are a good start. The short of it is that while some of his data is correct, the way he interprets it is just wrong.

Natural Selection. Natural selection very much happens perhaps.

Natural selection is a fact, but it is not the only process involved in evolution .

Genetics. Things have brought forth variety and it would make sense if He went from creating one kind of creature to creating another kind of creature without starting from scratch also perhaps. Should we not expect for dogs to have a closer relationship to cats than fish as far as genetics is concerned whether or not they share common ancestry?

I already said that I believe God created all, he just used evolution. As for the genetics, ask a geneticist.

Chemistry. Chemical compositions of things do help reveal origins of things maybe. There are polonium halos in granite that clearly suggest that a sea of primordial matter quickly froze into solid granite in the past perhaps.

If you feel that one scientist with a Master's degree knows better than the many PhDs who refute his conclusions.

Radiometric Dating. If you come across a room with a lit candle and you measure a height of seven inches and measure a burning rate of one inch per hour for the candle, you're not going to know an original height of it or if it has always burned at the same rate as a result of that perhaps.

Somewhat true. However, if you test a thousand of the same type of candles in many varied external conditions, then you will get a pretty accurate gauge of the range of times.

And 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? We have already discussed carbon-14 dating and should move on the uranium-lead dating as an example maybe. If we are going to go try to use that to date a rock, we are not going to know if the rock was created with lead already it in even if we assume there's been a constant rate at which uranium decays into lead perhaps. If we are going to approach scientific studies with an assumption that earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles randomly coming together and that happens to not be the case, then a serious amount of stuff is going to be thrown out of whack for us maybe. And there happens to be an interesting flip side to uranium-lead dating in particular maybe... uranium decays and produces helium-4 as a by-product and there's an amount of helium-4 on earth that indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay perhaps.

These techniques don't start out being accepted just because someone things they might work. They have to be proven, usually through multiple lines of evidence, by many people, who ALL find the technique valid. Again, you challenge this technique, but take young earth creationists' word for how these methods were tested. It just is not true.

You referred to stuff that at least basically claims that radiometric dating is backed up by tree rings and glacier ice core layers maybe. Dendrochronology is actually used to calibrate carbon-14 dating in the first place and they are not mutually dependant dating methods perhaps.

Even 7,000 years is to geology like a "microsecond" would be to us. Carbon 14 is mostly used for recent archeological finds. However, again, contrary to what you believe, it was not verified by just one or two trees or even solely by tree rings. It has been shown accurate by many forms of verification. Initially, it was not well trusted. However, now, since it has proven so accurate so many times, it is used as a kind of standard, within certain limits. It still gets questioned, but it is not necessary for each and every archeologist to re-verify this technique each time they use it. The science backing the technique is there for anyone to see.

Also, there are ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland that have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet maybe. An aircraft crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and was excavated in 1990 and was under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years maybe. 14,000 divided by 263 equals 53.23 rounded off and 53.23 multiplied by 48 equals less than 3,000 perhaps. 3,000? Hmm. Is there any glacier ice on earth that's over 5,000 years old?

To offer any true explanation, I would have to at least see the initial reports. However, just to guess, things that fall from a great height don't just rest on the surface, the tend to dig down into the ground. So that it was found a ways down doesn't mean that level was the surface when it dropped. Again, I am NOT saying that is what happened, just that it might be one possibility.

The Flood. I don't have the best idea about where you stand in regards to the flood in the first place maybe. You might have suggested that you believed in it and suggested that you did not believe in it.

I believe the Bible, therefore I believe the flood happened. However, there is no firm evidence of a worldwide flood.

What would you consider to be undisputable evidence for a single world-wide flood? I've already referred to physical processes that match up with physical evidence and have already poked holes in one or more official theory perhaps.

No, you have pointed out a couple of theories that are absolutely NOT backed by real science, that violate the evidence. .. and obviously you have, again, not bothered to even look at the information I gave you or to make any attempt to see if it really is true or not.

I also answered your question already, at least in part. The best evidence would likely be a consistant silt layer from the same time period, after human beings have appeared on Earth. However, from the outset, there could be evidence that is just not yet understood to be evidence. This does NOT include the garbage put forth by young earth creationists as "proof", but it could include techniques we don't yet have, etc.

Like I said, lack of proof is not, itself, proof.

You claim the Morrison Formation is from the Jurassic and claim that has been shown through radiographic dating, studies of fossils and knowledge of how formations were created maybe. First, what does radiographic dating having to do with dating rock? Did you mean radiometric? You might want to see a radiometric dating section above. If you claim it's been shown through studies of fossils and knowledge of how formations were created, can you explain what you mean? Fossils are dated by sedimentary layers themselves and occasionally by radiometric dating maybe. And you mean to claim that knowledge of how certain formations were created is used to determine how the formations were created? That would be an illogical assertion maybe.

Your information is incorrect. I have given you the correct information and some explanations as to how your information is incorrect and links to where more explanations and references to the techniques used to prove this can be found. You choose to ignore it and keep referring to untruths about how things are dated. The confusion that young earthers claim about dating is just not real. The evidence is there, it is verified.

Not sure what you read in terms of scripture maybe, but Genesis 7:11 straight up refers to fountains of the great deep perhaps.

This is not an explanation for Yosemite Geysers, as you try to present. Nor are any of the other explanations you provided correct. I explained this already and also explained what you would need to do to prove the acccepted theories wrong. I don't have time to give you a geology education, even if I were a geologist. I can and did show you where and how to get that information.

You provided text concerning the Ogallala Aquifer that makes adamant claims without backing them up and you even subtly suggested you were concerned about it afterwards by claiming that to show why the text is believed to be true takes a good deal of time and study perhaps. I got serious amounts of time maybe. The deposition of the aquifer material dates back 2 to 6 million years according to what?

I am not concerned about it. I am telling you what you need to do to prove the accepted science wrong. As to the date, I already told you how to do this. You confuse explanations of what is known with the evidence itself, a common young earth tactic. What I post is mostly explanations. The proof for how those things are established and the proof of why and how the various techniques work is found in peer-reviewed journals and occasionally other documents. To find where that proof lies you will need to look at the citations for the article. Often there are citations for the techniques. However, if a technique is very widely used, then it becomes "common information" and a citation is not needed. In that case, though, you can do a google search and, eventually, find the real citations. Lately, I believe there is a concerted effort by young earthers to put all of their stuff first, because any time I do a search for these things, I find about 20 young earth articles and only get to the real stuff after rephrasing the questions. So, you can expect to have to go through several garbage pages before you get to any real journal publication.

Also, many of these techniques have been proven long before the internet. In those cases, you may have to go to a real library and get the actual journal articles. Most major universities with a decent geology program will have such information on dating techniques.

You want an ounce of explanation for how something could possibly be true? What, if so?

Everything you present is ideas that have no basis in real facts, as I explain in each case. You cannot just say "here is a theory, I like it, it must be true". You have to show real and true evidence, evidence that is not disputed by credible science. You have not presented any such thing. That you think you have shows what a poor science background you have. I have attempted to explain how you can educate yourself, so that whether you believe evolutionists or not, at least you will be talking real evidence. You dismiss what I write.

Does this show a crater that was caused by a natural randomly shaped meteor if you had to guess?

I am not qualified to guess. It does not even look like it is from Earth, but at any rate it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Maybe we shouldn't expect a wyojones site to say a geyser is a leftover of a 5000 year old surge of water from the earth whether there's one that is or not.

Any site that claims geysers are left over from a 5000 year old flood are presenting something that is just not true. Sorry, but that is the fact.

It took an immense amount of time to smooth out Snake River Plain according to what if you claim it did?

Be specific. The river is pretty long. In sections, it definitely carved out over a long period of time. In other areas, there are many layers of deposition. In some sections, you see both -- periods of carving and periods of deposition.

[PLAYER57832]

From the "proof of God" thread:

Truth of evolution? Evolution is hardly a truth, if it was so, if evolution was proven to be truth, without a shadow of a doubt, there would be no serious opposition. People like Dr. Wolfgang Smith, and Dr. Michael Denton to name a couple (for the sake of not having this post be a list of highly educated people who are opposed to evolution) would not be presenting the flaws, and arguing the THEORY of evolution. Evolution is not a truth.

This is just one opinion, regarding one of the people you cite, Dr. Wolfgang Smith . It is, however, rather illuminating and succinct:

http://www.naturesrights.com/knowledge% ... harist.asp
Wolfgang Smith was a scientist and mathematician as well as an extreme right wing Catholic. Dr. Smith wrote some reactionary and inaccurate things about the theory of evolution, based on 1930's creationism. Smith's distorted and false ideas about evolution, along with those of Schuon, Burckhardt and Guenon are amazingly ignorant. mere dressed up restatements of creationist doctrine. Smith's abilities as a a biologist are non-existent, He had no grasp of the of the vast array of evolutionary evidence. Had he studied the evidence he would have learned that many of the so called "missing links' in the theory of evolution are no longer missing. He would also have learned that there is virtually no evidence for the theory of creationism of so called 'intelligent design". All of the traditionalists base their criticism of the theory of evolution on the idea that the "lesser cannot come form the greater" meaning that their idea of god is greater than nature, so therefore god comes before nature. This is sophistic logic, of course. the god idea is a constructed thing, not a fact like dinosaur bones. Dinosaur bones are much older than any idea of gods or any abstract ideology, Platonic, Taoist or otherwise.

Most of Smith's evidence for his anti-evolutionary thought comes from Douglas Dewar (1875-1957), who was himself, a follower of George McCready Price, a creationist. Dewar helped lunch the launched the “Evolution Protest Movement” (1932) members of which declared the theory of evolution to be the “child of satan” among other silly things. One source states that

"Geologists dismissed Price as a crank and ridiculed The New Geology as being riddled with error and distortion, the book caused a sensation among religious fundamentalists, who cited it as the first book to use science to show that the Bible is literally correct. Price (who was not a geologist) was even cited during the Scopes trial as a scientific expert. For a time, he traveled to England, where a disciple of his, Douglas Dewar, enthusiastically echoed his mentor, saying bluntly, "The Bible cannot contain false statements, and so if its statements undoubtedly conflict with the views of geologists, these latter are wrong." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 146) Much of Price's "flood geology" can be found, nearly intact, in the writings of modern creationists.

Dewar is one of Smith’s primary sources of anti-evolutionary thinking. Smith's thesis is basically an attempt to state, on the basis of evidence mostly culled from Dewar's questionable creationist texts, that evolution did not happen. Since Smith shows little understanding of biology or of paleontology, his statements about evolution are mere dogmatic assertions based on discredited writings from the 1930's. Smith claims all species came from humans who represent god on earth. This human centered theory is stated as if it were a fact that requires no proof.


----------------------------
A review of Dr Denton shows that he wrote a book that was used by some others to create the theory of Intelligent design, though he apparently no longer suscribes to that theory. What he has presented has been roundly rejected as unscientific and based on misunderstandings and fallacies.

The TRUTH is that while some intelligent people do object to evolution, most have never truly studied evolution.

[Lionz]

Do you say the theory of Evolution and refer to a theory that holds that there's not a single living organism on earth that does not share common ancestry?

There might be a number of theories that are more bottom up than you realize. If the devil exists, what's he up to? Maybe it wouldn't be a good idea to assume he's lazy.

Perhaps we look at geology differently and have different stances in regards to how many living organism share common ancestry, but you and I believe creatures have brought forth variety perhaps.

Wolves and poodles and great danes all come from a limited number of canines who were on the ark maybe. There might be a pre-flood giraffe kind unto itself, but it would be interesting if they shared common ancestry with horses and mules and zebras and donkeys and camels perhaps. Who knows?

a) Were geologic layers used to determine where fossils dated to?

b) Are index fossil used to determine how old geologic layers are?

You referred to some palonium halos stuff that is way over my head maybe, but where are concentric halos from in general even if Gentry has not demonstrated that concentric halos in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes? You might have suggested granite origins were well understood by human scientists earlier.

You referred to one or more page that claims or at least suggests he has samples that are not from primordial pieces of original Earth crust and he has samples that are from rocks which have been extensively reworked maybe. What evidence is there backing that up?

You might have referred to one or more thing that tries to use halos not being found in meteorites or lunar samples as evidence against Gentry's hypothesis. What would halos being not found in meteorites or lunar samples do to explain palonium halos in general?

One or more source provided by you is at least basically claiming that there are many alternative lines of evidence demonstrating a great age for the Earth that his hypothesis cannot accommodate maybe. What many alternative lines of evidence for that is there?

There's only one earth regardless of how many of the same type of candles there are that can be tested perhaps. 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 and do you have any personal theory concerning helium-4?

There are preflood fossils and postflood fossils and carbon 14 dating would be much more likely to be accurate dating the later perhaps, but even living snails have been tested to be 2,300 years old with it perhaps.

Who knows how much carbon 14 was produced before the flood? You might believe in some type of great flood yourself. Would it not make sense if there was way more vegetation growing on earth just prior to the flood? Can we not find tree remains in Antartica?

Carbon-14 atoms have a 5,700 or so year long half-life and no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years maybe. Right? Well, has any natural source of carbon below Pleaistocene strata been found that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14? Is there not strata claimed to be millions or billions years old that contains significant amounts of carbon 14?

There was a landing of the P-38 and none of the crew was lost perhaps. You might want to search Greenland The Lost Squadron in a search engine.

Maybe you should help me understand what Genesis 7:17-24 refers to if it does not refer to an earthwide flood.

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

Where have I posted a theory that is not backed by real science and that violates evidence? If you're going to accuse me of something, can you not make it a hit and run accusation and actually try to help me understand where I err? What specifically do you claim I have not bothered to look at if you claim I have not bothered to even look at information you gave me?

Maybe you should read all of the post before replying. You say one or more thing that suggests you did not do that perhaps. Fountains of the great deep did not burst forth just anywhere and most water came from places that are now known as oceanic ridges maybe. Does anything suggest to you that there should be a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition if that's the case?

You skipped a number of questions in a section containing the word radiographic in it maybe.

Where did fountains of the great deep burst forth at if they didn't in places now known as Yellowstone and oceanic ridges?

You say one or more thing as if you're concerned there's some kind of sneaky business going down about young earth creationists getting sites higher in search engine result lists maybe. Do you know what novus ordo seclorum means?

Wikipedia does not say where 2 to 6 million years comes from and I've looked around a little bit trying to figure it out perhaps... maybe you will let me know if you figure it out.

I have shown no real and true evidence in a personal mind world that you have built up for yourself with the help of individuals who have told you things for decades maybe. I've already received PMs giving me positive reinforcement perhaps.

You say one or more thing as if I am under you in terms of intelligence and like you have baby stepped me towards learning how to get a education maybe.

I've provided images showing Barringer Crater and it very much is on earth and in Arizona perhaps.

What do you want me to be specific about? You might have claimed that it took an immense amount of time to smooth out Snake River Plain. What suggests it did? Also, you say one or more thing as if you believe Snake River simply carved it over millions of years and one or more thing that suggests you are greatly underestimating how wide it is maybe.



You might have quoted MatYahu thinking that you were quoting me.

Note: I said one or more thing in error and have edited perhaps.

[dalliance]

tl;dr

[PLAYER57832]

continued....

You want stuff on the Channeled Scablands and Great Salt Lake and Monument Valley and Rainbow Bridge (not sure if RB is technically part of Monument Valley or not perhaps) and Petrified Forest National Park and Grand Canyon and the Algodones Dunes? The Channeled Scablands were created by cataclysmic flooding even according to wikipedia perhaps.

A flood, yes. However, the times and other evidence do not support the theory that this was Noah's flood.

There might be some long ago and far away type fairy tale nonsense included having to do with a mythological time known as the Pleistocene epoch, but people are taught from grade school up that earth is millions of years old and the result of a random distribution of dust particles coming together and faulty assumptions have led to faulty science perhaps.

If you wish to claim the science is faulty, it would help if you actually LOOKED at the science and not just what young earther articles claim is "the science". I have pointed out more than a few things you are stating that are just plain wrong, beginning with your assumptions about (even your definition of) Carbon 14 dating, how rocks and fossils are dated, how a world-wide flood would have left traces on the earth, and now this. You make claims that the Plesitocene is a "mythological" time, but refuse to consider any of the evidence that is used to identify this age. Instead, you dismiss it with your idea that all these dates come from circular reasoning. You put that out, without even looking at how things are really done and act as only young earth creationist understand why circular reasoning is wrong. Circular reasoning IS wrong, which is why that is not how rocks are dated.

You refer to "faulty assumptions". Which scientific "assumptions" are supposed to be faulty? How do you know they are faulty? Seems like the only reason you "know" is that you read it in creationists texts. I know science is true because, through years of schooling and study, I have seen how science works. I can go and check virtually any technique, given the time and access to the libraries where the information is published. This is not true for young earth creationist research.

The Great Salt Lake is a straight up saltwater ocean complete with seagulls and shrimp that's stuck in mountaneous terrain out west perhaps.

Not "perhaps". This is the truth.

What's there to say about it? Wikipedia makes mention of the Pleistocene epoch in an article for it also and claims it used to be part of a body of water that covered much of present day Utah maybe.

Yes, that sounds about right, though I would have to look it up to be sure.

[again, will submit rest later]

[PLAYER57832]

Wikipedia actually calls on meandering rivers to explain Monument Valley maybe. What does this have to do with a meandering river?

Are you asking about the segment below where the article claims that rivers don't meander "that much"? I can tell you this is absolutely wrong. Just look at pictures of oxbow lakes, for an example.

Note: You can see one or more road there that can be mistaken for a river perhaps. You might be able to see a car though. Here's another image and text that refers to it below maybe.

I might mistake the road for a river? No, I can tell the difference. If you think they look the same, then that shows you have not been taught much about stream processes.

Nor do you really need to post pictures of such well-known sites. Just stick to the explanations.

Here is the standard view of how Monument Valley geology:
Monument Valley is one of the most photographed landscapes on the surface of the earth! Everyone has seen cars perched on top of monuments, movies where the hero rides off into that landscape. One of the pullouts is even called John Ford's overview because he put that view of the valley into so many of his westerns. What has happened here to make this spectacular landscape?

Monument Valley lies on top of a major region of uplifted strata, the Monument upwarp, which extends for approximately 100 miles southward from the Needles region of Canyonlands in Utah. This uplifted region has been heavily eroded along its axis, exposing very old strata (Middle Pennsylvanian) in the canyons of major drainages. Where the San Juan river cuts across the Monument Upwarp the entire set of Permanian red beds are gloriously exposed, as well as several hundred feet of the older Pennsylvanian Honaker Trail and Paradox strata.

On the southern crest of this uplifted region, Monument Valley's magnificent buttes and rock fingers are composed of de Chelly sandstone, forming the vertical walls, above the soft red Organ Rock Shale from the Cutler red beds which comprise the gently sloping bases of the monuments. The formations are capped by Moenkoepi shale which is protected by remnants of the Shinarump Conglomerate, a part of the Chinle Formation.

I posted the above just to give a reasonable comparison to what you have copied. However, I am not going to do a "line by line" analysis. I am not a geologist. I can say that its pretty evident that streams did carve out a good portion of that valley. Just look at the depressions and erosion pattern. That is exactly the pattern you see in streams all over the world. It is not the kind of pattern you would see if the explanation you give below were what actually happened.

Regarding any other sites, here is a link that copies part of USGS Survey Bulletin 1508. I don't know if that bulletin is still available, but it would probably give the details on most of those sites you have pictured. (seems they are all pretty much parks or landmarks).
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... /sec13.htm

Figure 118: Mesas, Buttes, and Spires. Monument Valley, on the Arizona-Utah border, is the most famous location in the world for mesas, buttes, and spires. These features, also abundant over thousands of square miles surrounding Monument Valley, are inside the basin that held Grand Lake, a lake that existed for probably a few centuries after the flood. The long cliff spanning the horizon marks a small part of Grand Lake’s boundary. As Grand Lake spilled and began carving the Grand Canyon 100–250 miles to the southwest of Monument Valley, groundwater surged upward through the lower portions of the lake floor and carried off the material that once connected these stark and magnificent land forms. All were carved in weeks. Since Grand Lake drained a few thousand years ago, weathering has produced the piles of debris at the base of each mesa, butte, and spire.

The towering walls of these formations are strikingly vertical. How and when did they form? Two dramatically different choices are proposed—millions of years or several weeks.50 Why are buttes and spires concentrated in Grand Lake’s basin? There, adjacent buttes contain corresponding horizontal layers at the same level, showing that they were once connected. What removed the huge volume of sediments between the buttes, and where did the sediments go?

I am not sure what they are even questioning here. Geologists say that this was carved out over a very, very long period of time as the stream dug down and the landforms gradually rose. In that time, only very, very small amounts of sediment (individual grains) would need to be carried away at any one time. This is not anything fantastic, it is a process we can observe all the time around us, right now.

Ironically, though, if you follow the young earth story, then you DO have that question. Where did all that sediment go? Where did the waters go? Where did it come from? Where is the evidence (and not, don't say the Aquifer you mentioned before or Yosemite there is no such link between those feature and these features.

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

Whoever said this obviously does not know anything about streams! A stream's natural "tendency" is to curve. Look at any stream not held in by natural bedrock or levis and you see curves and curves and curves. In fact, oxbow lakes are formed when streams curve so much they basically form a circle (more or less, I am simplifying a lot). More than that, if you look at the picture, you do see a stream and you see a rather smooth, flat channel spread out over most of the valley.

(Besides, rivers and streams do not meander enough or flow in circles—a necessary first step if rivers carved buttes.)

wrong on both counts. Rivers and streams will wander from one side of a valley to another, with the sinuosity (lenth of curves, etc) that varies depending on the substrate. However, there were other processes involved here in addition.

Nor did wind carve these features, because large sand dunes are missing.

The particles carved by wind would be carried over very long distances. The absence of sand dunes proves nothing. That it is mentioned in this way shows the person writing this does not understand a lot of basic geologic processes.

What happened?

Beneath Grand Lake’s basin today is a 1,400-foot-thick layer of sandstone. When Grand Lake was present, that sand was uncemented and saturated with water. Sand grains are hard and somewhat rounded, so water-saturated sand layers contain about 40% water by volume. As the lake emptied, the relatively large channels between these grains allowed the high-pressure water under Grand Lake to rapidly discharge upward,51 through the lowest portions of the lake bottom—the easiest routes of escape. With those upward torrents of high-pressure water came swirling sand and dirt that was quickly swept out of Grand Lake and down through the Grand Canyon, which was forming 100–250 miles to the southwest. The highest portions of the lake bottom, including islands, offered the greatest resistance to the upward-surging flow; consequently, those high regions remained intact. Cliffs (along some of the lake boundaries) and mesas and buttes (internal to the lake) began to take shape.

uh. No, definitely not. Doesn't take a geologist to see this!
Sand grains surging up is not what caused these buttes and so forth. It is purely impossible. Note, I did not say "highly unlikely" or "not the most accepted theory" or give this any other qualifier. Sand does not sort in this way, nor do formations from in this way.

Even if this were true, as described, the sorting of the layer should be consistant with this explanation. In fact, it is not. It IS consistant with the model of layer after layer being formed over great deals of time and then portions eroded away.

Why were those pires left? I am not sure that anyone really knows. However, we can speculate, based on what we observe around us all the time today, that there was something about these pieces that made them slightly "harder" than the parts that were eroded away.

Imagine sitting on the bottom of a shallow swimming pool. Your head barely sticks out of the water and, therefore, is an island. You exert little pressure on the bottom of the pool, because your body is buoyed up by the surrounding water pressure. (Such buoyancy is commonly called Archimedes’ principle.) In other words, you almost float. Suddenly, someone pulls the plug, and the pool rapidly drains; now your entire weight presses against the floor of the pool. Had you been a newly forming butte resting on the floor of the rapidly draining Grand Lake, you would quickly press down on 1,400 feet of water-saturated sediments. It would be as if, over a period of weeks, a 250,000,000-ton rock, with only a 1/4-square-mile base, settled down on a water-saturated, 1,400-foot-thick sponge. Water would surge upward and erode the sides of the rock, making the butte slender, its perimeter scalloped, and its walls vertical. The banks of Grand Lake, now quite high, would also increase the pressure on the 1,400 feet of water directly below. If that water could escape upward, a bank segment would become a cliff. (Under special conditions, a relatively few mesas and buttes formed beyond Grand Lake as the flood waters drained from the earth.)

Again, no.
That anyone would believe this is pretty scary, because it means they have been taught a load of utterly and completely false "science". The proof against this is there, but some of it takes years of learning various scientific principles to understand. NOT to believe, but to understand.

It receives relatively little rain perhaps... should there not be Grand Canyons scattered across the earth if it simply happens to be a massive canyon that was carved by the Colorado over millions of years?

There are, just not quite as grand as the grand canyon. This has to do with the particular rocks and the tectonic forces in this local (uplift, shifting, etc.). In many areas vegetation, looser soils, etc create different features.

Here's a number of images showing California's Imperial Sand Dunes perhaps.
They're to the south of where the Grand Canyon ends and are between it and the Gulf of California maybe.

I have been there, and can read a map, besides.

Want to know where they come from?

California’s Imperial Sand Dunes. About 2.5 cubic miles of sand, the largest sand dunes in California, extend for more than 40 miles in a valley between the Salton Sea and Yuma, Arizona. In his geology textbook, Richard Flint estimates that wind slowly blew all that sand in over “at least 160,000 years.”62 He does not explain the source of the sand or how it was produced, why wind deposited the sand there and not elsewhere, or why little dirt was blown in.

This person did not read far enough. The sands are believed to have come from an ancient lake.

So often, geological explanations substitute vast time periods for evidence and mechanisms. Some individuals (and often the media) think they are hearing a scientific explanation, are impressed, and repeat those stories. But there is a complete explanation with abundant scientific evidence.

Sounds pretty much like what young earth creationists do, not scientists. In fact, the explanation is there and so is the proof. Now, in this case all of these ideas are theories. No one pretends otherwise. (well, someone might mistate the case) There could be more or different processes going on there. However, the holes that exist are nowhere near big enough to allow for this young earth explanation.

Not sure if there should be a gap between these or not maybe.

Mud settles slowly out of standing water. Because little mud lies in the California dunes area, the valley was probably filled with water only briefly. (Most of the mud that did settle was swept out of the valley by draining waters.) This is consistent with the few weeks I estimate it took to carve the Grand Canyon.

The Grand Canyon could not have been carved out in a few weeks. The forces required just don't exist on earth. Furthermore, that much of a water surge would create even further scouring down stream, not dunes.

I already sent this and yet there are questions in it that you did not answer perhaps...

These all show upstream from the Grand Canyon or an actual starting point of the Grand Canyon or both perhaps. See a main funneled canyon and also a smaller canyon that the Colorado River sits in? How about provide a theory on where each came from if so? Note: You should look closely towards top right of a fourth image below perhaps.

Don't repeat questions.

Do you claim that the Colorado itself carved out both canyons in the first if you see two canyons in the first? Well, see a white dot here?

I claim that geologists explanations are backed by facts and evidence, whilst these young earth theories are most definitely not.

It's marking one or more thing shown here perhaps...



A type of pothole is shown that forms when whirling rocks caught in an eddy or vortex of a fast-flowing stream grind down carving a cylindrical depression perhaps. If there was not rapidly flowing water 6,654 feet above sea level on top of Echo Cliffs, then what is shown there?

There are a couple of possibilities, though I would have to talk to a geologist who studied the area to know for sure. Either this was at sea level when scoured or it was formed through another process. We see pits and depressions in many places simply because water sits in small pools (even just drops, initially) and then slowly dissolves the rock. (I cannot tell you the chemical processes off the top of my head. I studied that part a long time ago, but this is how some caves are formed).

Edit -- looked at this in the light of day, with clearer eyes and I have to say it looks much more like the kind of depressions that form when water settles on a rock and, essentially becomes very slightly acidic and, over a very long period of time, dissolves the rock (there are several ways this can happen, the best source for an explanation would be texts on cave formation. This would be the start of some such formations). If it were formed, as claimed by a whirl pool, then the sides should be much smoother, because it would be formed by constant friction. Also, even if it were formed as a whirlpool, it would be formed over a very long time period and when these rocks were the surface layer.

You 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?

No, I did not. You asked for an example of something that might be positive proof and I gave that as an example of what would be pretty firm evidence. I also said that there could be other types of evidence, including even things not yet discovered, perhaps using techniques no one yet knows.

Well, fountains of the great deep did not burst forth just anywhere and most water came from places that are now known as oceanic ridges maybe.

Ridges are formed in various ways, but not because "fountains of the deep burst forth" as you envision. Most particularly they happen at different times.

Does anything suggest to you that there should be a uniformly timed deposit of silt with similar composition if that's the case?

I suggest that you have your facts wrong.

You refer to stuff under a title of Bryce Canyon Geology that starts off with Long ago as the first two words and if you see that starting off a collection of words then you should be especially weary of them being followed by a fairy tale maybe.

Funny, seems I specifically referred to evidence and proof.

And I specifically asked for evidence of what you claim to be true. All you have presented are stories that are just not possible, given the physical evidence.
_________________________
I am getting tired. that is all I will deal with for now.

[jonesthecurl]

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).

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) .

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",

Lionz, if you really are strong enough in your "faith" to absolutely present any one single fact to Player, something that you honestly believe (not "maybe" or "perhaps") refutes any single point she's made. please present it. Short form,and in your own words.

Player, if he doesn't, go and do something more worthy of your time.

And, please , can we assume that this relates to ANY thread in which you two are debating, raher than going through all this n times?

[john9blue]

If he is a troll, he is by far the hardest working troll I have ever seen.

[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