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.
The question is how life survived having all these processes crammed together.
Originally Posted by dad
But how they are formed determines how dangerous they were to life. If we have hot rock oozing up, it is different than a supervolcano, for example. If Sudbury was a fountain of the deep, it is different than a giant comet pummeling into an inhabited earth! Iridium could have come from below, where we know there is the stuff.
Again, how did life on this planet survive, if all these catastrophic events got crammed into a 6,000 year period?
Again, how did life on this planet survive, if all these catastrophic events got crammed into a 6,000 year period?
They were not as catostrophic as you think, I would have to guess! Like the oozing out of material, rather than the volcanic blasting in many cases. Like Sudbury and the Yucatan craters not being impact craters after all. Of course there are many meteor craters, but not all are such, it seems.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
They were not as catostrophic as you think, I would have to guess!
There's a serious flaw in this type of thinking. It assumes that anything that does not conform to your a priori assumptions, must at all costs, be wrong.
Right. They were not as catastrophic as all modern science claims. Why? Because if they were, you would need to abandon your a priori assumptions and admit you are wrong. And we won't have any of that. Will we?
...
Right. They were not as catastrophic as all modern science claims. Why? Because if they were, you would need to abandon your a priori conclusions and admit you are wrong. And we won't have any of that. Will we?
Well, regardless of your beliefs they either were or were not as catastrophic as science has claimed. Looking at the basis for the claims, we see it is based on heavy old age assumptions. You'll have to do better than that. Why? Because your whole faith rides on such wild claims.
There's a serious flaw in this type of thinking. It assumes that anything that does not conform to your a priori conclusions, must at all costs, be wrong. A world where there was no physical only as the present changes all that, like turning on a light in a dark room. When you finish squinting, you need to adjust your old age beliefs accordingly, or back them up. Otherwise your dark dreams are just that, fantasies.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Well, regardless of your beliefs they either were or were not as catastrophic as science has claimed. Looking at the basis for the claims, we see it is based on heavy old age assumptions. You'll have to do better than that. Why? Because your whole faith rides on such wild claims.
There's a serious flaw in this type of thinking. It assumes that anything that does not conform to your a priori conclusions, must at all costs, be wrong. A world where there was no physical only as the present changes all that, like turning on a light in a dark room. When you finish squinting, you need to adjust your old age beliefs accordingly, or back them up. Otherwise your dark dreams are just that, fantasies.
What the hell does faith have to do with any of this? Why do you treat science like a religion?
What the hell does faith have to do with any of this? Why do you treat science like a religion?
Because they the hell go into the past as a belief, not as an observer. The old agers believe the past was the same as the present, and take their fantasy mental vacations accordingly. If you wanyt to talk about the scientific aspects, fine. I have tried here, but am met with assumptive indignation and rhetoric!
In Sudbury, and Yucatan, they ascribe I believe different impacts to the 'craters'. Some differences exist, so I think they say the one was a comet, and the other was a meteor. Now, actually, we don't know much about comets, and their make up, if I am not mistaken? See, it isn't like these things are written in stone.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Because they the hell go into the past as a belief, not as an observer. The old agers believe the past was the same as the present, and take their fantasy mental vacations accordingly. If you wanyt to talk about the scientific aspects, fine. I have tried here, but am met with assumptive indignation and rhetoric!
In Sudbury, and Yucatan, they ascribe I believe different impacts to the 'craters'. Some differences exist, so I think they say the one was a comet, and the other was a meteor. Now, actually, we don't know much about comets, and their make up, if I am not mistaken? See, it isn't like these things are written in stone.
They were not as catostrophic as you think, I would have to guess! Like the oozing out of material, rather than the volcanic blasting in many cases. Like Sudbury and the Yucatan craters not being impact craters after all. Of course there are many meteor craters, but not all are such, it seems.
The point is that lava thousands of feet deep and covering thousand of square miles did ooze out forming the many large igenous provinces on earth and there were many massive supervolcanos that left deep ash long distances from the eruption site and there have been massive impacts including Chixculub, Sudbury and Vredefort and there must have been many other impacts in the ocean and on the earth especially during the late heavy bombardment of the inner solar system.
You have to guess that they weren't so catastrophic because there is no way to accomodate all these events in your mythical young earth. You have to guess to accomodate your myth and yet constantly complain about assumptions.
__________________ A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
The point is that lava thousands of feet deep and covering thousand of square miles did ooze out forming the many large igenous provinces on earth
Thank you!
and there were many massive supervolcanos that left deep ash long distances from the eruption site
Says one speculation. Others have speculated the flood may have carried some ash. Myself, I speculate that a lot of the ash, or ground up material may have come up less catastophically than you imagine. You haven't addressed the idea. Again, in the rapid pre split movement of the continents. If some of the bigger 'craters' were fountains of the deep, what better place for ground up material to come out, whether oozing, or spurting, or ejected somehow in the great movement. Then carried with the winds. No?
and there have been massive impacts including Chixculub, Sudbury and Vredefort and there must have been many other impacts in the ocean and on the earth especially during the late heavy bombardment of the inner solar system.
Interesting, - whether it was the floodtime when a lot of the material was shot out there to begin with, or not. But again, calling evey one of these things impacts is a stretch.
You have to guess that they weren't so catastrophic
Don't get your nose up, cause you have to guess that they weren't so catastrophic because there is no way to accomodate all these events in your mythical old earth, if they were young earth phenomena.
You have to guess to accomodate your myth and yet constantly complain about assumptions.
Old age, Godless, contrary to bible assumptions, yes, they elicit revulsion from me. Good, well based sound assumptions, I think are great.
__________________ Pr 21:30 -There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.
Linear Mode
