Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[dad]

This same argument works for shark's teeth as well. Sharks shed their teeth on a regular basis. If YEC is correct then we should find shed shark teeth in Pre-cambrian marine sediments, but we don't. Instead, we find them in the same layers as shark skeletons. Here is a pic of a C. megalodon tooth.

Can you prove man never used to grow new teeth, or that shark teeth used to fall out as they now do?

 

[dad]

The same is also true of creatures that have exoskeletons such as trilobites. Most of their fossils are just shells, so you would expect to find them in the Precambrian if they had been around since the formation of the Earth.

BUT YOU DO NOT

Not if the pre creation was not that long after creation. If, say, trilobites had an original lifespan of 500 years, and then the fall happened, say 70 years after creation, and their lives were shortened to 40 years, that means we have, in this example, about 110 years to play with. With the rapid deposition possible in the past, there is no problem. Is this all you guys can come up with??

 

[dad]

Dad, you might want to think about who is stabbing in the dark here.
Science makes the most reasonable assumption based on what we already know about a natural phenomenon

It is not reasonable at all, unless the same laws apply! For example, if the universe will be in a new state altogether, fundamentally different, as the bible states, today's laws are out the window, obviously. That means the sun can last forever after all, and etc etc etc. Same deal for the past. We just do not know the state of the universe then. So, trying to ride your little present based assumption to infinity and beyond is not an option. It is stabbing in the dark.

(and that's that radioactive decay is remarkably unaffected by most environmental conditions imaginable on earth).

That is correct, as long as we mean on a present state universe earth, with our laws now in place.

You, on the other hand, have no idea what might have happened but are somehow sure it wasn't what science thinks. Without the puniest shred of evidence for your stance.

Only because the bible is solidly evidenced, in ways science can't touch, and the glaring fact that they have not the puniest shred of evidence for their PO past stance.

Of all things, why iridium? Because you've heard some vague newsbabble about the K/T asteroid and the iridium spike?

Because there is that deep under the earth, I am told, and also in space. The waters came DOWN, and UP, so why not sprinkle some of that stuff in? Simple.

In short, you have no idea again. Why should anyone take your model seriously when it doesn't even make proper predictions? (I'm only whispering this, but if you knew the first thing about geology you could probably work out a few. I'd bet a good sum that not many of them woud be found in the real world.)

Predicting how things pan out in a present state is a useless exercise, if the new heavens are going to be here soon, and this is a temporary state. Present based predictions need a present state.

 

[dad]

Provide scripture then along with rationale as to why it's both relevant and pertains to observable reality.

Provide science then along with rationale as to why it's both relevant and pertains to unobservable reality. The bible is tested and proven in the lives of millions over time. It already passed the grade. Denial does not need to be addressed seriously, any research effort should yield enough to realize that it is pertinent.

 

[dad]

Provide evidence for your claims.

The evidence is clear that science only assumes it's way into the past and future state of this universe. You are evidence of that.

 

[Vene]

The evidence is clear that science only assumes it's way into the past and future state of this universe. You are evidence of that.

OK, I'll provide an example of an accurate prediction. Physicists that studied the big bang predicted that there would be background microwave radiation. Not only was this shown to be correct, but the radiation detected was the same as what would be predicted under unifromitarianism and the big bang theory.
link

Now, that shows that there are indeed constants in the universe and the fundamental workings of the universe are constant.

Now, you give me some actual evidence. I have so far given over an infinite amount of evidence than you have (because you have given nothing).

I will not be providing anymore until you start to back up your claims with sources.

 

[Vene]

Provide science then along with rationale as to why it's both relevant and pertains to unobservable reality. The bible is tested and proven in the lives of millions over time. It already passed the grade. Denial does not need to be addressed seriously, any research effort should yield enough to realize that it is pertinent.

Then tell me of these tests. I even direct you back here where I showed that the Bible fails basic genetics.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you prove man never used to grow new teeth, or that shark teeth used to fall out as they now do?

I can't prove my own existence, Descartian doubt and all.

However, every fish jaw ever found contains multiple rows of teeth just as they do now. The purpose of these rows is to replenish teeth as they are torn out or shed at the front of the jaw. This is certainly so with C. megalodon. Here is the whole jaw.

For comparison, a Great White's jaws would only be waist high or so. Shed C. megalodon teeth are found over extensive areas, but only in the same sediments where the jaws are found. How does a flood sort jaws and shed teeth into the same layer?

 

[dad]

OK, I'll provide an example of an accurate prediction. Physicists that studied the big bang predicted that there would be background microwave radiation. Not only was this shown to be correct, but the radiation detected was the same as what would be predicted under unifromitarianism and the big bang theory.
link

Now, that shows that there are indeed constants in the universe and the fundamental workings of the universe are constant.

From your link..
"
The cosmic microwave background is a prediction of Big Bang theory. In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favourable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This happened at around 3,000 K or when the universe was approximately 380,000[4] years old (z=1088). At this point, the photons scattered off the now neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to electrons combining with nuclei and to the decoupling of matter and radiation respectively).
The photons have continued cooling ever since; "

What a load of nonsense in the extreme. First we need a hot soup, small enough that the eye can't see, to hold trillions of galaxies, or what they came from. You don't have that. Never did. Then you need to wave the magic wand again and again, over the made up dreamland, and chill it just right for hydrogen to come into being. Maybe toss in an olive and a swizzle stick. You also need nothing but a physical universe and present laws, which you don't have, save in your bean. The series of cosmic coinkidinks is needed to require a bit of background radiation. Meaningless. That is just one event that would expect it. A changed universe obviously also expects it. See, they worked from this state, and went back in their heads from there, to a fantasy land. A place where some change remnants were expected, but no more or less than change remnants from a non PO change. You can't take credit for the change. The fingerprints of the change for the split suspect as well, so get in the line up, friend, get in line.

Now, you give me some actual evidence. I have so far given over an infinite amount of evidence than you have (because you have given nothing).

Same evidence, different change. It is mine o mine. I can even say unequivocally that the universe will change right back again, not into an imaginary speck o soup, but into the created forever state. It is predicted.

 

[dad]

Then tell me of these tests. I even direct you back here where I showed that the Bible fails basic genetics.

Balderdash. How many alleles were there in Eden? How did they react to each other then? Etc etc.
You never fleshed out your claim in the least, when asked to. Was it you that offered some mammoth dna as proof that it was always the same? And, how would we know it was the same, even if it was the same!!!??? In other words, if we did see a gene, and disected it, how would we know how the alleles used to be 'powered up'??
No, you simply hit and run with some claim you thought sounded good. You have no point. Get serious.

 

[dad]

I can't prove my own existence, Descartian doubt and all.

However, every fish jaw ever found contains multiple rows of teeth just as they do now. The purpose of these rows is to replenish teeth as they are torn out or shed at the front of the jaw. This is certainly so with C. megalodon. Here is the whole jaw.

For comparison, a Great White's jaws would only be waist high or so. Shed C. megalodon teeth are found over extensive areas, but only in the same sediments where the jaws are found. How does a flood sort jaws and shed teeth into the same layer?

Oh, it doesn't. I am not into flood geology. How do teeth anywhere mean a same past, or old ages, or no creation??

 

[Vene]

Balderdash. How many alleles were there in Eden? How did they react to each other then? Etc etc.
You never fleshed out your claim in the least, when asked to. Was it you that offered some mammoth dna as proof that it was always the same? And, how would we know it was the same, even if it was the same!!!??? In other words, if we did see a gene, and disected it, how would we know how the alleles used to be 'powered up'??
No, you simply hit and run with some claim you thought sounded good. You have no point. Get serious.

I can't make heads or tails of this word salad. "How would we know it's the same, even if it's the same?" Using the same techniques that are already available to code genomes and perform DNA tests. You've got nothing.

From your link..
"
The cosmic microwave background is a prediction of Big Bang theory. In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, adiabatic cooling caused the plasma to cool until it became favourable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. This happened at around 3,000 K or when the universe was approximately 380,000[4] years old (z=1088). At this point, the photons scattered off the now neutral atoms and began to travel freely through space. This process is called recombination or decoupling (referring to electrons combining with nuclei and to the decoupling of matter and radiation respectively).
The photons have continued cooling ever since; "

What a load of nonsense in the extreme. First we need a hot soup, small enough that the eye can't see, to hold trillions of galaxies, or what they came from. You don't have that. Never did. Then you need to wave the magic wand again and again, over the made up dreamland, and chill it just right for hydrogen to come into being. Maybe toss in an olive and a swizzle stick. You also need nothing but a physical universe and present laws, which you don't have, save in your bean. The series of cosmic coinkidinks is needed to require a bit of background radiation. Meaningless. That is just one event that would expect it. A changed universe obviously also expects it. See, they worked from this state, and went back in their heads from there, to a fantasy land. A place where some change remnants were expected, but no more or less than change remnants from a non PO change. You can't take credit for the change. The fingerprints of the change for the split suspect as well, so get in the line up, friend, get in line.




Same evidence, different change. It is mine o mine. I can even say unequivocally that the universe will change right back again, not into an imaginary speck o soup, but into the created forever state. It is predicted.

You are aware that energy doesn't take up space, right? Are you aware that energy can be converted into matter? The plasma is the energy and as Einstein demonstrated in his equation e=mc[sup]2[/sup] matter and energy are interchangeable. Cease with the misunderstanding and strawmen.

And again:
PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS!

 

[Split Rock]

Ac
Actually, that is wrong. Evolution as it is taught, and understood today, does not cover the Pond fable any more. That is, as you know, abiogenesis.

I guess the "Garden Fable" would be better to teach.. hmmm?

But it seems suspicious that things appear fully intact in the record, id the claim is true. That smacks more of a migration, and creatures arriving on the scene. Just because I think that we had the ability to adapt fast as needed, does not mean that there was some succession of lifeforms that omits creation.

What do you mean by "fully intact?" How else would organisms appear in the fossil record? Deformed? Crippled? Left side lizard and right side bird? One half mammal and one half fish?

Where did these creatures migrate from? Eden? Then we should see this pattern of migration in the fossil record... why don't we??

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, it doesn't. I am not into flood geology. How do teeth anywhere mean a same past, or old ages, or no creation??

The point about the teeth was to argue against what many creations call "hydraulic sorting." That is fossils were sorted during the Flood based on size and possibly shape. Thus, we shouldn't find shark teeth with the articulated skeleton of the same species of shark, which of course we do.

 

[Split Rock]

Balderdash. How many alleles were there in Eden? How did they react to each other then? Etc etc.
You never fleshed out your claim in the least, when asked to. Was it you that offered some mammoth dna as proof that it was always the same? And, how would we know it was the same, even if it was the same!!!??? In other words, if we did see a gene, and disected it, how would we know how the alleles used to be 'powered up'??

LOL!! Genes were "powered up" differently B.T.S. (Before The Split)! Comic Gold I tell you... Comic Gold!!

No, you simply hit and run with some claim you thought sounded good. You have no point. Get serious.

I hope you never take your own advice, dad. I would miss your posts!

 

[dad]

...Using the same techniques that are already available to code genomes and perform DNA tests. You've got nothing.

Well, the same techniques mean that the same state had to be here. That means we really did not live a thousand years, or have babies with relatives, or see rapid evolution off the ark, etc. So, you need to do more than assume such a phantom zone state.
You haven't clearly shown the precise amount of difference due to, you claim, mutation, anyhow. You simply claim it is too great. But remember, if creatures could evolve on the fly, in jig time, then the changes happened at breakneck speeds compared to today. You are up against a rock and a hard place for your notions here.

You are aware that energy doesn't take up space, right? Are you aware that energy can be converted into matter? The plasma is the energy and as Einstein demonstrated in his equation e=mc[sup]2[/sup] matter and energy are interchangeable. Cease with the misunderstanding and strawmen.

Enough with the physical only past state pipe dreams. If we stimulate present matter a certain way, it does certain things. FIRST you need a real teensy speck o soup universe of present matter before you can start stimulating it. Then, and only then will your would coulda shoulda's carry the slightest weight.

And again:
PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS!

My claims that the universe changed is evidenced in the CMB. It is evidenced in the red shifted starlight. It is evidenced in the documented lifespan, and bio differences of the past, as being different than what we have today. It is evidenced in the short recorded history of mankind, different tongues, separate spirit world, and separate continents, mountain that were build up, and etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. I steal all your evidence, then add tons more science can't even detect, that is well known to most men.
You have tall tales of absolute absurdity, based on absolutely nothing. Never has such a disgrace to the race of men existed, and never will it again. The beastly little philosophies of those with a partial darkened understanding of the universe. You miss the forest for the trees.

 

[dad]

I guess the "Garden Fable" would be better to teach.. hmmm?

Much better.

What do you mean by "fully intact?" How else would organisms appear in the fossil record? Deformed? Crippled? Left side lizard and right side bird? One half mammal and one half fish?

Good question. But how else would created life appear? It swings both ways.

Where did these creatures migrate from? Eden? Then we should see this pattern of migration in the fossil record... why don't we??

Why, do you think a straight line migration took place? Or a general pattern of spreading out from point E? Think about it.

 

[dad]

LOL!! Genes were "powered up" differently B.T.S. (Before The Split)! Comic Gold I tell you... Comic Gold!!

Well, it is one thing to form a man from wet dirt, or whatever. Another thing to bring him to life, power him up, as it were. Same with any of his parts, like genes.

 

[dad]

The point about the teeth was to argue against what many creations call "hydraulic sorting." That is fossils were sorted during the Flood based on size and possibly shape. Thus, we shouldn't find shark teeth with the articulated skeleton of the same species of shark, which of course we do.

Oh. Well that isn't so bad. Flood geology really doesn't answer all the problems it would need to, to give the flood credit for everything. But they can cheer up, reinforcements are here.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, it is one thing to form a man from wet dirt, or whatever. Another thing to bring him to life, power him up, as it were. Same with any of his parts, like genes.

Let me guess -- Spirtual Jumper Cables?