Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Vene]

Let me guess -- Spirtual Jumper Cables?

Of course, without the spiritual energy our molecules fall apart.

And again to dad, provide evidence for your claims.

 

[dad]

Of course, without the spiritual energy our molecules fall apart.

And again to dad, provide evidence for your claims.

Well, take any man shaped pile of dirt, and try to have it do the dishes, and read the alphabet, and name Rover. How much support does the obvious need? Something powered him up. There is even art about it.

I don't make this stuff up, you know, really.

 

[Vene]

Well, take any man shaped pile of dirt, and try to have it do the dishes, and read the alphabet, and name Rover. How much support does the obvious need? Something powered him up. There is even art about it.

I don't make this stuff up, you know, really.

Oh, we're dirt now. Well, dirt is silicon-based, but humans are composed of less than 1% silicon. Instead we are largely composed of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon.

And since when is art evidence?

 

[dad]

Oh, we're dirt now. Well, dirt is silicon-based, but humans are composed of less than 1% silicon. Instead we are largely composed of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon.

And since when is art evidence?

No, we are not dirt now, we had the power surge, and became alive. We haven't been dust now for a long long time.
But, according to this, there is more than silicon in dirt.

"

Periodic table of the elements with the common elements from the Earth's crust highlighted with white.
Click on image for full size ( 15K GIF)
L.Gardiner/Windows to the Universe

Even though there are 92 elements that are naturally found, only eight of them are common in the rocks that make up the Earth’s outer layer, the crust. Together, these 8 elements make up more than 98% of the crust.
The 8 most common elements in Earth’s crust (by mass):
46.6% Oxygen (O)
27.7% Silicon (Si)
8.1% Aluminum (Al)
5.0% Iron (Fe)
3.6% Calcium (Ca)
2.8% Sodium (Na)
2.6% Potassium (K)
2.1% Magnesium (Mg)"
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html



Most of the human body is made up of water, H2O, with cells consisting of 65-90% water by weight. Therefore, it isn't surprising that most of a human body's mass is oxygen. Carbon, the basic unit for organic molecules, comes in second. 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of just six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.

1. Oxygen (65%)
2. Carbon (18%)
3. Hydrogen (10%)
4. Nitrogen (3%)
5. Calcium (1.5%)
6. Phosphorus (1.0%)
7. Potassium (0.35%)
8. Sulfur (0.25%)
9. Sodium (0.15%)
10. Magnesium (0.05%)
11. Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
12. Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)"

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/f/blbodyelements.htm


Now, when we factor in the idea that God did not need to use only surface materials, because there might be dust down below as well, not just on the surface, we see we have all that is needed. Then, we can think about the atmosphere of the time of the reaction, as well as the power source, and any reaction it had on the dirt, and presto, the picture is as clear as art. You can't wave that away.

 

[Lazuline]

God's too lazy to rearrange subatomic particles, is he?

 

[Patashu]

Wow! God gave that dirt much power that the silicon atoms spontaneously broke down into carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen!

Why did he want to make us from dirt anyway? Isn't that a little demeaning?

If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?

 

[Patashu]

Oh, here's one for you dad:

At no point in modern history have we observed any physical constant or natural law or anything of the sort change, and especially not change dramatically; papers have been written on the subject, and constants cannot be changing more then a very slight, very slow amount (and that's at best).

Why should we assume that natural laws have changed abruptly in the past if there are no modern observations of any natural laws changing abruptly?

 

[Lazuline]

Hey, and can you prove that humans were always 65% oxygen? Huh?

 

[dad]

God's too lazy to rearrange subatomic particles, is he?

On the contrary, if He were so lazy, you would still be dirt. Woudn't you say you are somewhat otherwise arranged now?? The evidence mounts.

 

[Patashu]

On the contrary, if He were so lazy, you would still be dirt. Woudn't you say you are somewhat otherwise arranged now?? The evidence mounts.

You're only considering two possible situations here:

1. God exists and is not lazy
2. God exists and is too lazy

You have to consider that it is, gasp, possible that he doesn't exist. Y'know? And we evolved and all that jazz?

I may as well be 'refuting' you by saying that if evolution didn't exist we couldn't have evolved thus providing evidence for evolution's existence. See? It doesn't work like that.

 

[dad]

Wow! God gave that dirt much power that the silicon atoms spontaneously broke down into carbon and hydrogen and nitrogen!

What dirt? You assume that it was on the surface of the earth??? Curious. What if He formed them deep down? Why, there is a lot more than silicon to work with.

Ps 139:15- My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Dig??

Why did he want to make us from dirt anyway? Isn't that a little demeaning?

Some people I think He should have made out of dung. Be content with how He did it.

If man came from dirt, why is there still dirt?

Because making one man did not take all the dirt on and under the planet. Simple.

 

[RichardT]

This thread is so off topic now that I don't know how to get it back on track.

 

[Baggins]

This thread is so off topic now that I don't know how to get it back on track.

I suggest you put Dad on ignore and have a think about why the fossilised flowering plant pollen shows the same distribution as the fossilised plants.

That would do for starters.

 

[dad]

This thread is so off topic now that I don't know how to get it back on track.

Why was there some other point about the coal plants that you feel could be made? Or some aspect of the record you feel that the explanation of a migration from Eden cannot answer? If not, why your case is already lost, relax.
If so, then what are you waiting for?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Why was there some other point about the coal plants that you feel could be made? Or some aspect of the record you feel that the explanation of a migration from Eden cannot answer? If not, why your case is already lost, relax.
If so, then what are you waiting for?

If we for argument accept you explanation of why non flowering plants colonised the world before flowering plants; that is differential colonization times, it creates a major problem with Genesis.

If what you say is right, then the flood could never have happened, because according to creationists all these sediments including the coal measures are a consequence of that major flooding event.

But you are suggesting that these non flowering Carboniferous plants are in situ, but just arrived around the world before flowering plants, which in a sense is true, because they were there first by about 200 million years, due to evolution.

So if you are correct you need to explain how the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous and Tertiary sediments got laid down without a flood in less that a couple of thousand years.

Another thing you need to explain is why the world is now dominated by flowering plants, but why they were very unsuccessful through most of earths history.


Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician - No terrestrial plants, Dominated by aquatic plants.

Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, (Major mass extinction) Triassic, Jurassic, - Only non flowering plants

Ceataceous - Dominated by non flowering plants, some early flowering plants

Major mass extinction

Tertiary – Dominated by flowering plants, some non flowering plants

The only way your suggestion works is if Eden was a viable place 500 million years ago. Unless you have some idea of how to fit all this into 6000 years.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

See the emphasis? That includes you. So come back when you have your evidence to support that things were oh-so-different in the past. Since the scientific assumption paints a rather coherent and consistent picture of the world, I'll stay with that for the time being.

Besides, nobody wants to say things were always the way they are now. Just get one cursory glimpse of Big Bang cosmology and you'll see they weren't.

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

Are you sure we're still talking about the earth? (What in the world is "universe earth" anyway? ) Your objections would be perfectly well-placed in an early universe, or the middle of a star, where physics behaves a bit differently from what the earth is used to. Not the kind of places you generally find Carboniferous coal

Only because the bible is solidly evidenced, in ways science can't touch,

How is the Bible solidly evidenced? For heaven's sake, give me one piece of evidence relevant to this debate (eg, the fact that the Bible has some accuracy in its accounts of ancient history is totally irrelevant). You could also elaborate on why science can't touch the evidence. I don't think it should be called evidence at all if science can't deal with it.

and the glaring fact that they have not the puniest shred of evidence for their PO past stance.

What in the world is PO?

How much do you know about science? Do you have even the puniest shred of insight into its workings? Y'know, the whole bloody field is based on evidence.

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.

Very creative. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the iridium deep under the earth isn't quite where the water deep under the earth is. And the iridium in space tends to come down in meteorites. Are you now proposing a meteorite shower mentioned nowhere in the Bible?

("Why not?" Better question would be WHY?)

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.

The new heavens were going to be here soon for as long as someone invented the whole idea. And they aren't here yet unless I've missed something.

I wasn't talking about predicting the future anyway. Your "model" refers to the past, so it should predict things we should find when we look at evidence from the past. I'd be exceedingly happy if you answered my question instead of misinterpreting it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Clearly if they appear in images inside Egyptian tombs, they arepre-flood, and therefore pre coal layer. Just because they havn't found them doesnt mean they arent there.

Right Dad?

 

[Naraoia]

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.

Care to ask the opinion of those who actually made research efforts over the past few centuries?

How does the fact that the Bible makes some people feel better validate it as a source of knowledge about the universe?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Care to ask the opinion of those who actually made research efforts over the past few centuries?

How does the fact that the Bible makes some people feel better validate it as a source of knowledge about the universe?

because people are part of the universe?

 

[Naraoia]

What a load of nonsense in the extreme.

So you don't understand physics. Good to know.

It may sound weird and nonsensical technobabble, but it's actually hard-core mathematics. And the mathematics is often bloody accurate in its predictions.

I'd love to see a conversation between you and my theoretical physicist friend.

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 creative.