Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by tacoman528 To seesaw,
don't mean to get off subject, but I'm fond of star wars too. That's yoda right?
huh?
__________________ "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen W. Hawking
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally posted by tacoman528 To the first one about the earth spinning,
well, you are right about dinosaurs spinning off the earth thing, there wouldn't be any dinousaurs because of the huge centrifical force. The atmosphere would be gone. The water would be gone. All because of the huge centrifucal force. Making it impossible for life to have lived then
Did you not read the link I provided? Here, I'll quote a section for you:
"Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19).
The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.
Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year
Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day
If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:"
Even if the earth were 1 kilometer closer, it would eventually become too hot for life. The earth is set perfect for life, it couldn't have happened by coincidence.
Kid, the Earth varies its distance from the sun by 5 million kilometers each year. Look up "perihelion" and "aphelion".
They are rarely intact because of the water. The bodies would eventually rot, the water (no matter how gentle it would be) would pull the bodies apart (see my current/tide explanation) if there weren't a flood, most fossils would be intact because there isn't anything to pull them apart once they rotted.
So you assume that things not submerged in water don't rot? Try this experiment. Find a recently dead animals, bury it in your yard, wait a few years, then tell me if its skeleton remains perfectly intact.
ever been to a diatomacious earth mining area?
I asked for a source. Provide one.
when things aren't written down, they get changed a little bit every time they are retold. Good thing the Bible was written huh?
You're right. You may want to look at how early Biblical stories were passed around, though (hint: think illiteracy).
closed clam fossils:
goto: either www-drdino-com, or The Institute for creation research.
Provide a specific source. I'm not going to do the work for you.
To 4000 year old thing:
like what?
Read lucaspa's post on the same page.
Dead clams on mount everest.
That is if you assume Mount Everest was created by India crashing into China.
We know how plate tectonics work. We know the rate at which they move. Why would we assume it was created differently?
Originally posted by tacoman528 To Notto,
once again, It could have happened before or after the flood during a mudslide. Do I have to say it again?
If it happended before the flood, then anything below it would be pre-flood, including all of the fossils that are there, so those fossils would not indicate that the geologic column was created by the flood.
If it happened after the flood, then anything above it would be post-flod including all of th fossils that are there so those fossils would not indicate that the geologic column was created by the flood.
These features falsify the explanation of the fossil record being created at one time by a world wide flood. These features are shown throughout the fossil record and indicate that no matter what layer I pick, I can find evidence that fallsifies that either the layers above it or below were cause by massive world wide flooding. The geologic column cannot be used a evidence for worldwide flooding.
You are admitting that yourself with your answers.
You can't tell me how I could tell the difference in a layer that was pre-flood or post-flood. Given ANY layer of the geologic column, you can find evidence that would fasify the hypothesis that it was layed down at the same time as the layers above and below it through some sort of sorting method.
That is the point. There are many features in the fossil record that cannot be explained by rapid depositing of sediment over a short time period and and by the same mechanism as all of the rest of the layers. There are differences in the layers that show us how they formed, how long it took, and what was living when the layer was layed down. There is no way to reconcile this type of evidence with a world wide flood hypothesis.
Originally posted by tacoman528
experiment:
take a glass jar, fill it halfway with dirt, then fill it with water. You will get mud, put the jar onto a table and let it sit for a few minutes. What do you see? What does it kinda look like? It looks like the layers of rock that make up the crust of the earth.
First of all, the crust is made up of crystalline rock at the base overlain by a thin layer of sediments. Second, your "experiment" is NOT representative of how this sedimentation occurs.
This process takes a long time because:
(1) The sediments had to come from somewhere. First of all, a source rock has to be weathered by mechanical or chemical processes. This takes time. We can conduct experiments that measure the rate of weathering for various types of materials in the field of geochemistry. It takes some minerals longer to be eroded from a rock than others. It also depends on the composition of the solution if water is doing the weathering. There are many variables to consider. The sediments that make up the geologic record are NOT uniform in composition.
(2) The sediments had to be transported and deposited somewhere. Depositional mechanisms include wind, water, and even precipitation of dissolved elements in water. We can measure deposition rates of mechanisms based upon the influx of sediments at the reservoir source and the strength of the mechanism to carry this sedimentary load. We can also conduct experiments measuring the rate at which precipitation of dissolved material occurs from a solution by measuring the solubility of those elements and how saturated the solution needs to be (and what temperature) to determine the rate. This takes a considerable amount of time.
(3) Sediments that are deposited are NOT rock. What we see in the geologic record are lithified sediments (i.e., rock), not unconsolidated sediments like in your jar with muddy water. This process takes a considerable amount of time to actually form rock from sediments. It can occur due to pressure of overlying sedimentary layers or a fluid can permeate through the sediments and precipitate a cement that consolidates the sediment. The rate of this process can be measured as well considering several variables (temperature and pressure, for two).
Your jar of muddy water is not the same as in geological reality. Most importantly is that your jar of muddy water is not rock nor does it fully represent the sedimentary rock cycle. Your model is not representative, period.
The evolutionary scientists say that each layer is a million years older than the layer on top.
No, they don't. This is another gross misconception of geology it appears you have. Geologists don't arbitrarily say "each layer of rock represents one million years" as you seem to imply. Geologists DO say that the rock on the bottom is older than the rock on the top (except in the situation of thrust faulting and overturned bedding which are easily identifiable). That is called the principle of superposition. The age difference between different layers of rock depends on the processes that formed them and their composition. There are many factors to consider when determining how much time is represented by a sedimentary stratum.
Which would cause the same effect as the jar with water. You get layers. Not necessarily older and younger, just heavier and lighter.
The problem is we don't see this type of distribution in the record. The geologic record is not stratified by the density of the sediments that compose it. It is indeed stratified by age. We know this because of radiometric dating, fossils contained in the geologic record, and the principle of superposition.
If what you said was true, we would only see denser, larger particle sized-sediments on the bottom of the stratigraphic record and only silt at the top. We see no such thing. Instead we see layers of varying densities, compositions, and sediment sizes not only vertically, but also horizontally. That means as one layer is deposited in a certain environment (desert, for example) another layer is being deposited in another environment (a river/fluvial environment, for example) at the same time, but at different spatial locations.
If the flood was true, there would be ONE uniform layer horizontally worldwide. The layer would also be either extremely mixed or extremely sorted by density. We would also expect certain rock types to be present (limestone overlain by sandstone, for example as one sequence) based upon what we know about marine deposition.
So, what you need to do is point out the stratum or set of strata located in the same stratigraphic position (vertically) and found worldwide with a certain sequence of rocks and depositional structures. Since there is no such stratum or set of strata, I'll save you the time and tell you that what is predicted to have formed by a global flood is NOT found, and should be found if the flood occured because it happened extremely recently in earth's history, supposedly.
They say that the older things are found in the lower rock layers. The evolutionary scientist would say that this disproves the flood.
No, not just the evolutionary scientist, but the geologists as well. This is necessarily so as has been proven by paleontology, high temperature geochemical experiments with radioactive elements, and stratigraphy.
list of things about 4000 years old or younger
oldest tree
Wrong. The oldest tree is the Bristlecone pine whose age is about 5000 years old, if I remember correctly.
niagra falls
Wrong. Whoever told you this is a liar. One of the various official Niagara Falls websites (as the others concur) states that:
The first humans arrived in Niagara Region almost 12,000 years ago, just in time to witness the birth of the Falls. The land was different then, consisting of tundra and spruce forest. During this time (the Palaeo-Indian Period, which lasted until 9,000 years ago), Niagara was inhabited by the Clovis people. These nomadic hunters likely camped along the old Lake Erie shoreline, living in simple, tiny dwellings. They left little to mark their tenure except chipped stones. These large, fluted projectile points were likely to fell the caribou, mastodons, moose and elk that roamed the land.
Niagara falls is approximately 12,000 years old. Not even close.
Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss Niagara falls is approximately 12,000 years old. Not even close.
I live about 4 hours drive south of Niagra Falls. There were glaciers here that did not melt off tell 10,000 years ago. When the glaciers melted off, then the Indians began to travel though this area in the summer looking for food. I live on a portage they used long ago, to take their canoe out of the river to go around a water falls here where my ancestors built this city. They built here, because they used the power from the water falls to run a mill.
This last summer we went on a little boat trip on the river. They showed us a plant that is very much like a potato, that at the end of the season the indians would eat. It is still there growing after thousands of years.
The Niagara is a fairly young river, only 12,000 years old!, a microsecond in geological time. The
Niagara Escarpment, which was created by erosion is much older. The glaciers pressed down on
the land during the last ice age and laid down layers of sediment, then the slow process of erosion
of ice and water ate at the surface of the escarpment
__________________ "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special."
Stephen W. Hawking
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
