The Flood

[notyou2]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass.

At times during Earth's long history, the configuration of the continents and seafloor have changed due to plate tectonics. This affects global sea level by determining the depths of the ocean basins and how glacial-interglacial cycles distribute ice across the Earth.

The depth of the ocean basins is a function of the age of oceanic lithosphere: as lithosphere becomes older, it becomes denser and sinks. Therefore, a configuration with many small oceanic plates that rapidly recycle lithosphere will produce shallower ocean basins and (all other things being equal) higher sea levels. A configuration with fewer plates and more cold, dense oceanic lithosphere, on the other hand, will result in deeper ocean basins and lower sea levels.

When there were large amounts of continental crust near the poles, the rock record shows unusually low sea levels during ice ages, because there was lots of polar land mass upon which snow and ice could accumulate. During times when the land masses clustered around the equator, ice ages had much less effect on sea level.

Over most of geologic time, long-term sea level has been higher than today (see graph above). Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary ~250 million years ago was long-term sea level lower than today. Long term changes in sea level are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, with a downward trend expected to continue in the very long term.

During the glacial/interglacial cycles over the past few million years, sea level has varied by somewhat more than a hundred metres. This is primarily due to the growth and decay of ice sheets (mostly in the northern hemisphere) with water evaporated from the sea.

Don't trust anything made by an oil company and having to do with water.

Lies, LIES I TELL YOU!!!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Ha Ha

If Kevin Costner had done some research before he made Water World maybe he would have never made that stupid crappy movie.

Wasn't that supposed to be on another planet?

[Barramundi Dan]

No. Water World was set on earth after the sea level rose due to global warming.

I think Kevin Costner was on another planet when he came up with the idea.

[Lionz]

Haggis,

Maybe one or more thing comes down to if we hold that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John and Acts and more are works of blatant lies.

I'm not sure if He created Himself or not perhaps. What point are you trying to make about complexity if one? Maybe we should consider millions of factors really, but I referred to an A and B with more factors referred to at least?

Maybe whether or not earth being flood at some point in 2010 would be morally justified or whether or not Him doing something would naturally be Him doing something good would come down to definition really, but who are we to judge Him if He created the heavens and the earth?

I don't adamantly believe that knows everything perhaps. Would I guess that He did if I had to guess right now? Maybe so, but maybe I would not guess that He created someone intending for them to rebel against Him if I had to.

You've made one or more good point having to do with putting inherent uncertainty in words maybe... maybe I can and should change quite a bit of stuff up.

Dan,

There's enough water on earth to flood it even now if land can be smoothed out and there's even evidence that suggests that earth's grown larger and expanded perhaps. Is there a Pangaea model that show a pre-South America next to a pre-Australia?





Stretch marks shown below?







Player,

You've claimed things that have not been convincing to me perhaps, but where's an answer from you that's been ignored by me?

The forget the keys paragraph or whatever was said by Haggis perhaps You go off on me with over 70 words in response to wrongly thinking I got it from some website?

What don't I understand about evolution?

I've never once claimed you did not believe in a designer or believe in the flood and have never once claimed that evolution only looks to frauds maybe.

Is evidence proof of something according to a dictionary?

The flood occurred less than 5,000 years ago and there was not a mountain on earth that it did not rise above maybe. What do you claim is the biggest piece of evidence against that if you claim there is a biggest piece of evidence against it?

I'm not claiming the pyramid is proof of the flood by any means perhaps. It is evidence for it though maybe. Are you suggesting a local Nile River flood made the river rise over 400 feet?

You want scattered evidence for the flood? Sedimentary rocks are only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks and are themselves evidence for it maybe. And where are there not turbidites?

Woodruff and AAFitz,

Here is A and B perhaps...

A. We should not have as many fossils as we do.

B. So there should not be many fossils, right?

Back on page 6 Woodruff referred to an image that says B on it maybe. Where have I provided an image that says A on it and where have I personally said B?

Note: The are images in here that contain words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[Lionz]

Young Earth creationist site. You bring up known frauds, and articles/pictures that claimed these known frauds were still being used as proof by evolutionists. I brought up articles explaining this, and brought up nnot just articles, but pictures showing real fossils that evolutionists really do use. You ignored that and repeated posting claims that evolution only looks to frauds.

You posted articles and pictures with claims that certain fossils identifications were based on partial skeletons, scattered and so forth. I brought up both detailed explanations of why what the things you posted were not accurate and ALSO posted articles, links to pictures of far more complete fossils of the same species and you ignored them -- you ignored them in several threads, regarding initial land animals, transition to birds, human lineage, etc, etc.

Where? Can you provide a post link as an example? Maybe I'm misquoting in here for all I know.

[Woodruff]

Back on page 6 Woodruff referred to an image that says B on it maybe. Where have I provided an image that says A on it and where have I personally said B?
Note: The are images in here that contain words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

I tell you what, you coward...if you're not going to at least admit agreement with the images that you keep posting here, then STOP FUCKING POSTING THEM. Fucking coward.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

You've claimed things that have not been convincing to me perhaps,

Yes, well, when you begin by assuming that scientists are out to get christianity and only the young earth sites speak truth, that tends to happen. As I have said many times, understanding why they are not telling the truth requires understanding real science.

So, its a catch 22 -- you won't bother to even read real science explanations becuase you have been taught Anything not agreeing with young earth ideas is wrong, against God/the Bible and not trustworthy, but to understand why that is not true, you have to actually read those supposedly "untrustworthy" ideas and actually look at the evidence put forward on those sites.... but you cannot do that becuase they are "not Biblical" and anyone who suggests otherwise is "misguided".... so, instead, you prefer to simply read young earth stuff and pretend that you are actually criticizing real theories, won't be bothered to even look into what the real theories are.

but where's an answer from you that's been ignored by me?

When you ask the same question over and over and over, when you KEEP saying over and over and over "but the Bible says there is a flood..", etc. it tends to indicate you have ignored the part where I say I am not disputing the flood. There are other examples, but that is the one you repeated the most.

The forget the keys paragraph or whatever was said by Haggis perhaps You go off on me with over 70 words in response to wrongly thinking I got it from some website?

OH, I am quite sure you posted all YOU found on the young earth creationist website. But several of us have pointed out to you articles where he, himself makes clear that he was NOT arguing in any way in favor of young earth creationism, where HE says over and over that attempts to frame his words in the young earth creationist context are just wrong... etc.

What don't I understand about evolution?

Pretty much everything. (OK, slight exaggeration, but only a slight one). I have pointed out plenty of your errors, but you just respond with "there are many definitions for evolution maybe" or "did I really say that"?

I've never once claimed you did not believe in a designer or believe in the flood

Technically, no. However, you do keep bringing it up as if it were an argument against what I say.

and have never once claimed that evolution only looks to frauds maybe.

Never said you did. I said that young earth websites like to bring them up... and you have posted several such examples, and then ignored the posts where I or others have pointed out that these were admitted frauds, discovered by evolutinists and not used as a part of the debate.

See, when something is a fraud, it is no longer considered valid evidence, so claiming that it is valid evidence, trying to claim that young earthers are somehow presenting new information when they say it is a fraud... those are not technically lies, but get pretty darned close. It certainly amounts to deception, particularly when paired with an obvious lack of information regarding fossils that ARE, currently used as proof of various theories.

Is evidence proof of something according to a dictionary?

The flood occurred less than 5,000 years ago and there was not a mountain on earth that it did not rise above maybe. What do you claim is the biggest piece of evidence against that if you claim there is a biggest piece of evidence against it?

Ah, but earlier, the young earth thread you said you never made such a claim... which is it?

Anyhow, I offered quite a bit of evidence for an old earth and showed where just about everything you posted that claimed to be evidence in support of such a theory was just wrong. You did not pay attention the first time, why should I bother repeating it?

I'm not claiming the pyramid is proof of the flood by any means perhaps. It is evidence for it though maybe. Are you suggesting a local Nile River flood made the river rise over 400 feet?

I will leave someone else to answer the specifics of why, but no, the pyramid, the pyramids are most definitely not proof of a world-wide flood.
In fact, even suggesting such would go against the Bible, because Moses, et al happened well after Noah.

You want scattered evidence for the flood? Sedimentary rocks are only a thin veneer over a crust consisting mainly of igneous and metamorphic rocks and are themselves evidence for it maybe.

Not true in the way you wish to imply. That is, there is no single,world-wide layer of sedimentary rock spanning the world. Sedimentary rocks do generally, often come above other rocks, but not always. This is because sedimentary rocks from from surface processes. To be evidence of a worldwide flood, you would have to see a consistant layer around the world from the exact same time period with roughly the same make-up. No such layer has been found, despite the many attempts by young earthers to claim otherwise. Again, that is why I say they lie. Ignoring real information becuase it doesn't fit your worldview is a lie.

And where are there not turbidites?

I cannot remember the answer, but I remember looking into this and answering it in the young earth creationism.. again thread. Go back and look.

[Lionz]

Player,

You make untrue statements and attack me personally and should spend more time actually discussing evolution and how old earth is maybe.

I keep saying over and over and over but the Bible says there is flood..? What are you talking about? You even quote me as having said that using quotation marks?

Player... Haggis as in Haggis_McMutton and not someone with a quote found by me on a young earth creationist website perhaps... take a deep breathe maybe. : ) Did you confuse Haggis with Gould?

If I have errors having to do with understanding evolution that you've pointed out, how about simply do it again? What don't I understand?

Where is there a post ignored by me that points out that certain fossils were admitted frauds discovered by evolutionists not used as part of a debate?

I might Know little to nothing, but I stand by the flood having occured less than 5,000 years ago perhaps. What do you say that I said in a young earth thread?

Have you made a post attempting to offer evidence for an old earth that I have not addressed or made a post attempting to refute something said by me that I have not addressed?

You mean to argue that suggesting some pyramids are preflood would go against a Bible because of something having to do with Moses? Huh? There are postflood and preflood pyramids maybe.

Where is there not sedimentary rock? And what suggests to you that an earthwide flood would have left behind a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up whether there's one or not? Do you not actually hold that there is a geologic column that is found in various places across the earth with roughly the same makeup? Either way, fountains of the great deep did not break up just anywhere perhaps.

There are only two cc forum posts by you that include the word turbidites including last post in here from you and a post found here perhaps...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 7#p2558247

[PLAYER57832]

If I have errors having to do with understanding evolution that you've pointed out, how about simply do it again?

When I and others have posted answers several times, repeating them is pretty useless. You could understand, if you wished. You just don't wish to do so.

I might Know little to nothing, but I stand by the flood having occured less than 5,000 years ago perhaps. What do you say that I said in a young earth thread?

I think around page 19. But you refuse to stand by anything you say. Why should that be any different.
And no, if you think there is a possibility of a worldwide flood 5000 years ago, then you truly do know nothing about geology, hydrology, etc.

Have you made a post attempting to offer evidence for an old earth that I have not addressed or made a post attempting to refute something said by me that I have not addressed?

A definition. Posting more pictures from the exact same, non-credible source is not answering a refutation. I asked you to provide data and analysis to back ANY of your claims, but you could not provide it. I provided you with links to a lot of evidence, to either direct analysis and explanations of processes or to places where you could, if you wished, follow links to find what you wanted (much as I did regarding your ants in amber article).

Also, I gave you pretty clear explanations for why scientists consider what you posted garbage. You did not provide anything else, just posted the same stuff elsewhere... actually usually you posted again in the same thread.

You mean to argue that suggesting some pyramids are preflood would go against a Bible because of something having to do with Moses? Huh? There are postflood and preflood pyramids maybe.

No, there was no Egyptian civilization prior to the floods.

Where is there not sedimentary rock?

Again, you ask a question I already answered many times. There IS sedimentary rock all over the earth. The sediments, however, do not come from the same timespan or the same flood. Some are not even from floods.

And what suggests to you that an earthwide flood would have left behind a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up whether there's one or not?

Science and hydrology. To claim that any sediment is proof of a worldwide flood, you have to show that the same layer is connected to a flood around the world. This evidence has not been found.

Do you not actually hold that there is a geologic column that is found in various places across the earth with roughly the same makeup?

I addressed this pretty well in the young earth again thread. Probably better to say there are many columns that can be fitted together, and a few "outliers". Mostly, young earth references to this make it out that there should be something more than actually exists or claim the whole idea of tying one rock layer to another in a distant region is bogus. Trouble is, understanding why you can do that takes a lot of education...and none of you seem willing to pursue that, so, you believe the poppycock ideas of young earthers instead of the verified, repeatable data of real scientists.

Either way, fountains of the great deep did not break up just anywhere perhaps.

Either way, not relevant. Either way.. no evidence of this happening as you claim, never mind happening 5000 years ago, exists.

This will take you to a post where you address a question mentioning turbidites maybe...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 7#p2558247

[/quote]
Actually, I believe that is just were you asked me again, after I had already answered.

At any rate, the turbidites do not represent proof of a worldwide flood 5000 years ago.
Those ideas "sound nice"... up until you start investigating using science.

[tzor]

There's enough water on earth to flood it even now if land can be smoothed out and there's even evidence that suggests that earth's grown larger and expanded perhaps. Is there a Pangaea model that show a pre-South America next to a pre-Australia?

Words cannot describe how stupid this is. No really they can't.

In the first place, terrestial planets just don't expand like that. It's just impossible. The inner core temperature of the earth will only get colder over time, the internal pressure from that temperature will set the radius of the earth from the get go, not over a long period of time.

In the second place, you apparently have no clue about how the origins of continential drift. It is not enough that you match a vague shape, you also have to match the various mountain features together so that it makes sense. You can't do that with Austraila and South America. More importantly, South America and Africa are drifting apart, while South America is heading towards Austrailia (although there is this huge plate called the Pacific Ocean that just in the way).

[tzor]

And what suggests to you that an earthwide flood would have left behind a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up whether there's one or not?

Science and hydrology. To claim that any sediment is proof of a worldwide flood, you have to show that the same layer is connected to a flood around the world. This evidence has not been found.

I do need to point out something that is really important. This layer should be so intitutively obvious as to be immiediately observable. The asteroid impact, around the end of the dinosaur period did leave a layer that is fairly constant around the world. IIRC this sediment caused by the massive lifting of earth into the atmosphere was clearly visible in layers as far away as Italy.

[Lionz]

Thread,

Can someone help me understand what I don't understand about evolution?

Player,

What do you want in terms of data and analysis? I might not adamantly stand by the Hydroplate Theory, but are there not pages stemming from here with both?

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

When did I refer to an ants in amber article? Were you thinking of a wikipedia image?

There was no Egyptian civilization prior to the floods? What floods and what do you have to back yourself up?

There's actually quite a bit of evidence that fountains of the great deep broke up and you refuse to see some to your own hurt maybe.

Tzor,

Where's hell (gehenna) if not inside earth and what about it is going to get colder? Maybe we shouldn't place trust in men.

Plate tectonic theory is an incorrect theory perhaps. I might be no geology expert and not be sure what's happened to the earth, but oceans formed between continents as crustal material was exposed at mid-ocean ridges perhaps... continents are now settling in various ways after being separated from each other at rip-zones maybe.

Dinosaurs and man have coexisted perhaps. What's shown here?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 3#p2620353

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 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

Player and Tzor,

If there was a flood on earth and there was not mountain on earth it did not rise above, then..

1. Is there a missing consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up?

2. Is the geologic column a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up?

What suggests to you that an earthwide flood would have left behind a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up whether there's one or not? Can you answer by saying more than science and hydrology?

How about you provide a theory on Genesis 7:11? Water didn't come from just anywhere perhaps. 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 maybe. If earth was flooded with water and a majority of the water came from there, then what should we expect to find?











Hmmmm... what do we have here? Widespread turbidites stemming from Yellowstone? Note: There are images in here with words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

[tzor]

Tzor,

Where's hell (gehenna) if not inside earth and what about it is going to get colder? Maybe we shouldn't place trust in men.

I'll tell you what Lionz, I'll tell you where "hell" is when you tell me where "heaven" is.

(And I do believe in both.)

It is not really important to know "where" heaven is; it is only important to know the way to heaven.

[Lionz]

Aka shamayim? Maybe shamayim is a plural word that refers to more than one place, but the sun and moon are in shamayim perhaps.

[tzor]

How about you provide a theory on Genesis 7:11?

Yes, it's called "science." This is something that extreeme literalists cannot seem to understand. God revelals himself to man through men.

The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.

This was their "science," their understanding of the universe. It was the same science known by those around them. Much like the flood is a common story known to many cultures. The difference is that in Genesis, the science and the stories are given a special diminsion and connection with The Lord.

OK let's bring out the good old (and thus out of copyright) Catholic Encyclopedia.

Common to all is the effort to explain the origin of the world by as few elementary beings as possible. In order to arrive at the origin of all things, man began by abstraction from the actual differentiation of being which he saw around him to obtain some simple element underlying all. Mere abstractions, however, or reduction from the compound to the simple, did not suffice, but some intelligent causality was demanded by the intellect of man. Hence personification plays a great rôle in every cosmogony, and the actual function of creating, or rather forming and arranging the world as it now is, is ascribed to one intelligent personality; every people worshipped some deity, be he then Marduk or Varuna, or Bel or Ahura-Mazda, or Zeus or Janus. No ancient cosmogony, however, rose to the pure concept of creation out of nothing by an infinite spirit; for none succeeded in eliminating matter or its phenomena all together, and conceiving a subsistent Intelligence which could create both matter and spirit. The first steps in this process of abstraction are simple enough and common to most cosmogonies; once upon a time there were no men or beasts, nor plants; no stars nor sky, no mountains or valleys, and neither dry land nor sea. Then only proto-matter remained. Some cosmogonies stopped here and were frankly materialistic; it probably depended on climate surroundings what they conceived the proto-matter to be, whether clay or water, or air, or fire, or light (conceived as substances). Other cosmogonies carried the process of abstraction farther. The variations between light and darkness, day and night, season and season cannot always have been, hence these also were abstracted from; naught therefore remained except Darkness, Night, and Eternity. By thinking away all special localities in the universe, only Place remained in the abstract, or the Void. By thinking away all differences in the mental and spiritual sphere naught remained but force in general. Force, Place, Time, and Darkness became personified cosmogonic elements. Some were able to abstract even from Force; to them, only Place, Time, and Darkness remained. Some rightly argued that Time was but the measure of phenomena, and that by abstracting from phenomena, Time ceased to be. To them only Space and Darkness remained; but then Darkness was conceived as the fluid filling the vessel of Space, and therefore could be extracted from, and only the Void remained. All these ideas actually occur in different cosmogonies. Chaos is empty space; Chronos, Zrvan, Heh, abstract time; Nux, the unchangeable quintessence of time; Zeus, Tad, Ahura Mazda, Thot are spirit forces. Those cosmogonies which do not go so far as to personify space or time or darkness, but stopped short at the idea of some proto-substance, were faced by the problem whether this primeval substance was spirit, or matter, or both. Some answered, both, as the Egyptians (Nun) and later Indians (Purusha); some answered that spirit was first, as some Babylonian thinkers (Anu) most Indian thinkers (Tad, Brahma, Atman), and the Iranians (Ahura, Ahriman); some answered that matter was first, as Babylonians (Apsu Tiamat), Persians, and Egyptians (Light, Râ), Phoenicians (Air), Etruscans (Æther). Thus ancient thought wandered through the whole range of possible theories, not, however, guided by mere caprice, but forced to some conclusion which seemed to them inevitable. With regard to the immediate process according to which this world was produced, freer scope was given to unbridled fancy. Yet even here the analogy with the production of life in nature was the guiding principle, the world was produced as life comes from life by animal generation, or as the tree comes out of the seed, or as the egg is laid by the bird. These imaginations are often combined in a grotesque ensemble, against the complexity of which appear in greater relief the majesty and simplicity of the words: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[King Doctor]

I tell you what, you coward...if you're not going to at least admit agreement with the images that you keep posting here, then STOP FUCKING POSTING THEM. Fucking coward.

Woodruff,

Please stop your naughty trolling in this thread. It is throwing off everybody else's zen and killing their buzz.

Dude.

[PLAYER57832]

Thread,

Can someone help me understand what I don't understand about evolution?

#1 it is backed by EVIDENCE. All young earth ideas are not. Yes, I realize that you can point to nice looking websites and pictures that seem to claim they have evidence. It is not accepted by any credible scientist, is generally putting forward stuff utterly untrue, that simply could not be true.
#2. It is the result of gradual change over a very, very, very long period of time. Even so, genetic drift/mutations alone are not enough to account for all the diversity. For a time this was one of those legitimate questions, BUT, then evidence of various cataclysms was found. Killing off maybe 90% (just picking a number, not sure, don't know that anyone really knows how much actually left) of all life pushes evolution in specific directions.
#3. Each of the changes is evidenced by transition fossils. In some cases, we have a LOT, almost a whole continuous series of fossils. However, even those lines with "spotty" evidence pretty much shoe plenty of evidence to utterly refute any possibility of a sudden creation, a young earth, etc.
#4... etc.

What do you want in terms of data and analysis?

you start with an idea. You perform a test, you go on. You investigate and see what data shows... etc.
You don't just say "hmmm, this idea seems OK, let's go with it and call it fact". That is pretty much what those young earth scientists do.

I might not adamantly stand by the Hydroplate Theory, but are there not pages stemming from here with both?

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

I already told you to stop citing that source as if it contained real information. There is nothing they give that is true. This "hydro plate theory" is just not true, not even close. It does not truly match data available or evidence. It is a flat LIE.
Note, I did not say a mistake, because no one who studied science in truth could make such a "mistake". It is a flat out untrue lie.

When did I refer to an ants in amber article? Were you thinking of a wikipedia image?

You are correct, you did not. That was my mistake. However, you have posted plenty of other garbage.

There was no Egyptian civilization prior to the floods? What floods and what do you have to back yourself up?

The discussion referred to Noah's flood. I already said there have been plenty of floods in Egypt. Your claim was that there was a civilization prior to Noah that built some of the pyramids. I said that is just wrong.

There's actually quite a bit of evidence that fountains of the great deep broke up and you refuse to see some to your own hurt maybe.

come again? Hurt?
Try I understand hydrology, have studied it. What you call "evidence" isn't. It is a pack of lies that young earth "scientists" use to decieve those who have not and probably never will learn what real scientific evidence exists to show those things are false.

Plate tectonic theory is an incorrect theory perhaps. I might be no geology expert .

lol, this is truly humerous. You don't have to tell us you are no geology expert. It is quite evident! I am not an expert, but this is basic stuff that you show you don't know.

and not be sure what's happened to the earth, but oceans formed between continents as crustal material was exposed at mid-ocean ridges perhaps... continents are now settling in various ways after being separated from each other at rip-zones maybe

Dinosaurs and man have coexisted perhaps.

No evidence of this has been found. It is remotely possible that a dinosaur or a few dinosaur remnants persisted into the time when humans appeared on Earth. However, people evolved long after dinosaurs first roamed this earth.

What's shown here?

Art.

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?

There are also stories of mermaids that we now believe to have been based on Manatees, stories of white horse-like unicorns based on rhinocerous, etc. Stories might be worth investigating, but in this context, they are not proof.

Did Marco Polo not 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?

Even if these things were absolutely true, so what? As many of us have told you when you brought up this stuff before, evolution doesn't require that dinosaurs died out. Theoretically, we could find one today and, while it would be a fantastic scientific discovery, it would not in any way impinge upon the theory of evolution.

As I said before, this whole young earth line of argument is essentially based on two false ideas. One is the thinking that transition means the original species had to disappear. That's no more true than thinking that only or your cousin could have children and descendents, not both of you.

The second idea is that finding such evidence would disprove all the dating techniques, etc. Again, it would not.

If there was a flood on earth and there was not mountain on earth it did not rise above, then..

This question makes no sense. No one is saying there were no mountains at the time of the flood. In fact, the story itself rather tends to indicate there were higher and lower places.

The comment that was made was that perhaps the landforms were more flattened than today. There is, however, no evidence for this. It is only one possible answer to how a set amount of water could be spread enough to cover the Earth. Equally probable is "insert God".

1. Is there a missing consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up?

This question makes no sense.

2. Is the geologic column a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up?

No, it is not so simplistic.

What suggests to you that an earthwide flood would have left behind a consistant layer around earth with roughly the same make-up whether there's one or not? Can you answer by saying more than science and hydrology?

Every flood that has ever occured on Earth has left depositional traces. Water covering the entire earth would have left definite marks of that. What you claim to be that sort of evidence, though is not what you would really see. The tricky part is that some (not all) of what you point to really is evidence of flooding. It just is not evidence of the big flood, and most definitely not of one 5000 years ago.

How about you provide a theory on Genesis 7:11?

I believe it happened as explained.

Water didn't come from just anywhere perhaps. 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 maybe.

No, it did not happen that way. Geysers have been studied pretty well and the process is fairly well understood.

Among other issues, you mention only Yellowstone. There are geysers in many places. There are even more hot springs. They are associated with volcanic activity. Beyond that, I would have to look up the details and rather than say something wrong, I will simply say go here:
video put out by the National Park service in Yellowstone, titled "how to form a geyser". Fun and informative.
http://www.nps.gov/yell/naturescience/g ... dients.htm
OR
read here (wikki) : http://www.ask.com/wiki/Geyser

If earth was flooded with water and a majority of the water came from there, then what should we expect to find?

Rather hard to say because the fact is it did not happen as you claim.

The Ogallalla Aquifer is not a remnant of the Biblical flood. The idea is plain idiotic. I addressed the real creation of the aquifer already.

Again, finding a picture and some statements by an idiot who never studied hydrology (never learned it, anyway), is NOT proof of anything. How did this person reach that conclusion? What evidence? What studies show that this kind of process is even possible. I will give you a big hint.. they do not exist! Not in truth. What is suggested here is just plain false. Again, this is why I say these people lie.

Hmmmm... what do we have here? Widespread turbidites stemming from Yellowstone?

The first 3 pictures are reasonably true.. not going to worry about whether the percentages cited are true or not. To go from this "the earth is covered with sediments" and then "covered with lots of turbites" to the claim that this means they came from Yellowstone is idiotic.
First, the direction. flow, etc simply would not come forward in the patterns we see. The processes that created Yellowstone are understood.
Second, where is the proof that these turbites are in any way connected to Yellowstone? You would have to show no only a pattern of flow, etc that would directly tie them to Yellowstone. Chemical analysis would show if they came from a same source or not. ETC.

Also, they keep refering to Yellowstone, but utterly ignore the many other geysers, hotsprings and aquifers that occur around the world.

Note: There are images in here with words that are not my own depending on definition at least maybe.

Too bad. You posted them, you are responsible for their veracity. If not, don't post them!

[Lionz]

Tzor,

Do you mean to suggest that Moses wrote Genesis and that he was guessing about past stuff using a best of personal knowledge and that he included incorrect stuff as a result?

If someone claims that Genesis contains an actual account of events, does that automatically make them an extreme literalist?

Player,

1. Evolution?

Me not agreeing with something would not necessarily mean that I did not understand the something perhaps.

Who's suggested evolution meant something had to die out to be replaced? Have I not personally suggested horses and zebras shared a common ancestor and suggested I would guess lions and tigers shared a common ancestor if I had to? Maybe evolution occurs to an extent and there are several seperate genetic family trees on earth.

What do you claim there is almost a whole continuous series of fossils for? Several different species share common ancestry perhaps, but maybe there are seperate genetic family trees and you shouldn't get mad at someone for not believing that whales evolved from deerlike creatures or for not believing that humans and chimps share common ancestory through sexual unions in the past.

2. The Flood?

If there's something specific on a creationscience.com page that you want to call out as being false, then how about do so without simply saying something contains no real information and without attacking someone personally? You want predictions? There are several you can find in prediction boxes maybe.

I did refer to evidence that suggests the great pyramid is antediluvian perhaps, but I didn't straight up claim there was civilization prior to Noah that built pyramids maybe. I'm not sure what's occured and am not a big fan of adamant statments maybe.

I was not meaning to say there were no preflood mountains and one or more question from me came across wrong maybe. You claim there is no evidence that landforms were more flattened in the past though? Is there even a mainstream geologic theory that claims mountains haven't arisen from geologic activity?

Any theory on what the fountains of the great deep are if there are English versions of Genesis 7:11 that correctly refer to certain things as the fountains of the great deep? I'm not claiming water only came from from Yellowstone and there are geysers in multiple places perhaps, but see 80 percent mentioned here? http://cips.berkeley.edu/newsclips/17MICR.html

3. Dinosaurs?

If there's artwork portraying dinosaurs and writing referring to dinosaurs that's from scattered across the earth and from hundreds of years ago and yet it's not evidence that humans and dinosaurs have coexisted, then what would be? Maybe proof and evidence are words that get mixed up.

Is there a mainstream evolutionary theory that would stand up to a human coexisting with an apatosaurus or a triceratops less than 6,000 years ago? Is there one that would stand up to there having been winged serpents in the last 6,000 years?

Did you refer to an image and claim it's by an idiot who never studied hydrology without knowing where the image came from? I've never read an original Matthew 5:22 and am not sure what Christ has said perhaps, but do you have any stance on it?

Maybe whether or not I can prove anything at all comes down to definition, but we should weigh evidence and be careful about who we trust perhaps. There are things resting on false assumptions having to do with uniformitarianism and people become convinced of stuff in school and generally don't like to admit they're wrong about stuff maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

1. Evolution?

Me not agreeing with something would not necessarily mean that I did not understand the something perhaps.

No, but you continuing to ask things that are irrelevant and to insist that evolution means things it does not do indicate that.

Who's suggested evolution meant something had to die out to be replaced?

At least one of the article you referenced made that assertion. Further, it is a common one made by ICR.

Have I not personally suggested horses and zebras shared a common ancestor and suggested I would guess lions and tigers shared a common ancestor if I had to? Maybe evolution occurs to an extent and there are several seperate genetic family trees on earth.

No, you don't get off that easily. Modern young earthers like to claim that there can be variation "within kinds".

Evolution goes much, much further and deeper.

What do you claim there is almost a whole continuous series of fossils for?

I already gave you multiple lists.

Several different species share common ancestry perhaps, but maybe there are seperate genetic family trees

Not as you define them, no. Any such seperation would have been very, very, very, very far back.. before the origin of mammals, for example.

and you shouldn't get mad at someone for not believing that whales evolved from deerlike creatures or for not believing that humans and chimps share common ancestory through sexual unions in the past.

Mad? Me? I am not mad at individuals for believing anything. I am angry at ICR and the scientist who operate under their auspices because they flat out lie.

Most of what you claim to "not believe" is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding facts and evidence. You wish to believe ICR "scientists" speak honestly and truthfully. I KNOW that much of what they put forward is utter nonsense. I do not know, but believe they understand this. I fully understand that many, many children and adults, including, it seems you, have been duped by their idiocy. That does not make you an idiot, but your refusal to even look at other evidence makes you stubborn.

2. The Flood?

If there's something specific on a creationscience.com page that you want to call out as being false, then how about do so without simply saying something contains no real information and without attacking someone personally? You want predictions? There are several you can find in prediction boxes maybe.

I already addressed any legitimate points you had.

I did refer to evidence that suggests the great pyramid is antediluvian perhaps, but I didn't straight up claim there was civilization prior to Noah that built pyramids maybe. I'm not sure what's occured and am not a big fan of adamant statments maybe.

No dice... You like to think that just because you put "perhaps" at the end, you bear no responsibility. It doesn't work that way. You made the assertion. Stand by it or retract it.

Any theory on what the fountains of the great deep are if there are English versions of Genesis 7:11 that correctly refer to certain things as the fountains of the great deep? I'm not claiming water only came from from Yellowstone and there are geysers in multiple places perhaps, but see 80 percent mentioned here? http://cips.berkeley.edu/newsclips/17MICR.html

No explanation is necessary. What you posted was utter idiocy. The evidence that Noah's flood did not happen 5,000 years ago or 4,000 years ago is pretty vast. Only someone who has never bothered to look at real evidence, would possibly believe such could even possibly be true.

3. Dinosaurs?

If there's artwork portraying dinosaurs and writing referring to dinosaurs that's from scattered across the earth and from hundreds of years ago and yet it's not evidence that humans and dinosaurs have coexisted, then what would be? Maybe proof and evidence are words that get mixed up.

It is not evidence of anything. Even if it were, a few dinosaurs having persisted into the time of humanity would not negate evolution... yet another example of how you claim to refute evolution, but make it clear you just don't understand what you claim to refute.

Is there a mainstream evolutionary theory that would stand up to a human coexisting with an apatosaurus or a triceratops less than 6,000 years ago? Is there one that would stand up to there having been winged serpents in the last 6,000 years?

Yes. All of it would stand up to that. Why wouldn't it. As I said, that you question this is yet another example of why I say you don't understand real science, never mind evolutionary theory.

However, no such evidence has been found and the likelihood of such having happened is virtually nil.

Did you refer to an image and claim it's by an idiot who never studied hydrology without knowing where the image came from?

Yes, much of the young earth creationist stuff regarding Noah's flood, etc definitely falls into that category.

Maybe whether or not I can prove anything at all comes down to definition, but we should weigh evidence and be careful about who we trust perhaps. There are things resting on false assumptions having to do with uniformitarianism and people become convinced of stuff in school and generally don't like to admit they're wrong about stuff maybe.

Bull. You can deny evidence, you can ignore it, but don't try to claim that you have some superior knowledge. This is not a matter of definition. It IS a matter of evidence. Most of this is stuff you can check out for your own self.. not "trust" even involved. But... you make it clear you won't.

[Maugena]

Lionz, you seem to have a general predisposition against anything that would go against what is taught in the religion you seem to follow. (That religion being taught from some form of The Bible, I'm assuming.)

The general scientific thought process that leads us to theories, such as evolution, is this...

• 1. Why is X the way it is?
  2. Let's try to look and find things that cause X.
  3. Once a reasonable chain of logic is put together, a theory is then created.

The thought process of someone that argues with a religious predisposition is usually as follows...

• 1. Why is X the way it is?
  2. I don't know, so let's say it's a great mystery or say it was caused by something else that was made up without any hard evidence because that would go against my beliefs if I didn't!

Can you deny this, Lionz?
And don't give me any "maybe I don't know anything" bullshit. That's just a dodge.
You know damn well what you believe in and there's a general consensus that our perception of things around us is real and through that, we know.

The way I try to break down things I don't understand is that looking for simplicity is the easy way out.
The unexplained just hasn't been explained yet.
I'm not saying that the unexplained will ever be explained, but, I wouldn't resign myself to saying "it's that way because I was told so." I'd rather say "I don't know" instead of "<insert random deity here> made it that way."

Oh, and stop using a creation science website as your source.
They are biased.
Bias alone makes most, if not all, points invalid.

/endramble

[Lionz]

Player,

What do I insist evolution means?

Where's something referred to by me that suggests evolution meant something had to die out to be replaced?

What does evolution go much further and deeper than if He created original kinds and we don't know what they were?

Where did you give multiple lists of whole continious series of fossils between two animals if you did somewhere? If you don't feel like looking yourself, can you at least give me some words to search?

You might incorrectly treat some similarities as proof of common ancestry and be incorrect about where seperations would have had to of been as a result.

Maybe I'm really not very familiar with ICR and you assume things about me.

Did you mean to suggest there was not a creationscience.com page with data or analysis or a prediction regarding the Hydroplate Theory? Whether or not you think there's been no legitimate point made by me that you haven't addressed?

I do stand by the great pyramid being antediluvian perhaps, but I don't have a time travelling Delorian and don't want to lead people astray with adamant statements built on ignorance and arrogance and blind pride maybe.

The flood occurred between 4,300 and 4,400 years ago maybe. If there's pretty vast evidence against that being the case, then how about you refer to some and we discuss it?

I don't claim to refute evolution and even stand by it having occured myself perhaps. Do you say the word and refer to change in general or a specific theory or?

Did triceratops not die out over 60 million years ago according to mainstream evolutionary theory? If a human coexisting with one less than 6,000 years ago would not refute mainstream evolutionary theory, then what would?

What specifically about this is bull... Maybe whether or not I can prove anything at all comes down to definition, but we should weigh evidence and be careful about who we trust perhaps. There are things resting on false assumptions having to do with uniformitarianism and people become convinced of stuff in school and generally don't like to admit they're wrong about stuff maybe.

Maugena,

What if I wasn't brought up in a church going type immediate family and have come to find evidence backing up Genesis regardless?

Is A a more simple explanation than B?

A) He doesn't exist and everything's the product of random natural processes starting back billions of years ago and entropy has somehow increased in the Universe overall despite particles evolving into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolving into living materials and living materials evolving into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution and the planets just happen to appear to be following a formulated pattern and entropy somehow increased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy and life naturally came from non-life once and only once on earth and all creatures stem from that and there are plants that carry on with the help of insect pollination that somehow existed before pollinating insects and light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from and there were unisex individuals with male organs and female organs who somehow later mysteriously evolved offspring with only one or the other and dozens of writers throughout history wrote blatant lies to back up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that coincidentally got fulfilled and there were followers of Him who became martyrs after mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected?

B) He does exist and He created the heavens and the earth and life without requiring billions of years to do it and entropy truly is increasing and the planets appear to follow a formulated pattern because He laid them out in a certain way and there are some creatures not physically related to one another who share similar features because they have a common Designer and He created plants that carry on with pollination and pollinating insects within a few days or so of eachother and He designed creatures to have eyes and mouths and noses and ears pretty close to on another and He designed penises and vaginas for eachother and there have been dozens of writers throughout history who wrote actual true things backing up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that actually got fulfilled and there are followers of Him who became martyrs after actually having seen Him perform miracles and resurrected?

And is there really any site that's not biased?

[PLAYER57832]

I have answered most of those questions already and am not going to wade through that whole page to find the 2-3 that might actually be new. Read the threads again.. and this time, pay attention to the answers.

[tzor]

I'm going to regret this but ... why not.

Is A a more simple explanation than B?

How about C
or D
or even E
or F,G,H,I,J K for that matter.

You see, you think it is an "either or" situation. Either it's just exactly like you think it is or God is dead. Your faith is weak. By the way, please stop killing off God in order to prove your points. You know Player is a theist.

[Lionz]

Tzor, you were reading stuff directed at Maugena as if it was directed at Player maybe. Maugena refers to breaking things down and looking for simplicity? Well how about we throw out two options at a time and weigh them against eachother? I was not claiming it was only either A or B in reality and came across wrong maybe. And also... what do I truly know and who am I?

[AAFitz]

A) He doesn't exist and everything's the product of random natural processes starting back billions of years ago and entropy has somehow increased in the Universe overall despite particles evolving into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolving into living materials and living materials evolving into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution and the planets just happen to appear to be following a formulated pattern and entropy somehow increased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy and life naturally came from non-life once and only once on earth and all creatures stem from that and there are plants that carry on with the help of insect pollination that somehow existed before pollinating insects and light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from and there were unisex individuals with male organs and female organs who somehow later mysteriously evolved offspring with only one or the other and dozens of writers throughout history wrote blatant lies to back up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that coincidentally got fulfilled and there were followers of Him who became martyrs after mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected?

B) He does exist and He created the heavens and the earth and life without requiring billions of years to do it and entropy truly is increasing and the planets appear to follow a formulated pattern because He laid them out in a certain way and there are some creatures not physically related to one another who share similar features because they have a common Designer and He created plants that carry on with pollination and pollinating insects within a few days or so of eachother and He designed creatures to have eyes and mouths and noses and ears pretty close to on another and He designed penises and vaginas for eachother and there have been dozens of writers throughout history who wrote actual true things backing up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that actually got fulfilled and there are followers of Him who became martyrs after actually having seen Him perform miracles and resurrected?

Is A a more simple explanation than B?

Simple? Aboslutely not. More scientifically supported. Absolutely and completely.

A more simple explanation is not necessarily an important attribute to determining reality in any case. Many things have simple explanations and are the truth, as do many other things that could have simple explanations, that turn out to be false, with far more complex answers being the truth.

What is a simple possibility, and one with thousands of years of examples, is that man is capable, and often responsible, for making up simple explanations, using his imagination, and passing it on as fact, in lieu of investigating, and even often ignoring the actual scientific evidence in doing so. In fact, man does this so often throughout history, the most simple explanation is that all stories passed along and based only on word of mouth or accounts of other people, are suspect and not to be trusted, and that only scientific evidence, should ever be trusted, and even only then after a thorough investigation, and never simply taking a persons word for it, simply because at some point, someone else happened to believe what they said they saw, or heard.