Carboniferous coal measures contain no flowering plants or grasses

[Naraoia]

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

How many places was the Garden of Eden?

 

[Naraoia]

because people are part of the universe?

Bah, I think you know what I mean. Even if the Bible is a good spiritual guide for some or gives people solace, why should that make it a good science textbook?

Is it clearer now?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Dad and his kind do not have a leg to stand on, take the following image. This is fact, now every time they try to explain it, their arguments fall down, even the creationists who try dabbling with science end up falling down.

All they have are fairy tales and a Bronze Aged book

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Or heres another time line, every atempt at explaining what we see through religion fails

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

And just to finish off today

Explain this you religious fundies

 

[Naraoia]

Or heres another time line, every atempt at explaining what we see through religion fails

I only wonder what taxonomic level that diagram represents, because it's most certainly not species Hardly orders either, because modern reptiles only have four of those, so they'd be about the same size as amphibians... I guess we're seeing a lovely mammal-centric bias there.

</SJ Gould module>

 

[Loudmouth]

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

If all life was created within a week of each other then we should find shed shark teeth in the bottom most life bearing layers (e.g. pre-cambrian strata). We don't. Therefore, creation falsified.

 

[Athrond]

If all life was created within a week of each other then we should find shed shark teeth in the bottom most life bearing layers (e.g. pre-cambrian strata). We don't. Therefore, creation falsified.

Lets be a bit diplomatic, and say "*Creationism* Falcified" instead.

 

[atomweaver]

Well, I have science that clears up the issue. Look at what we know about the primordial earth. There were swampy areas, a lack of grasses, and, as time went on, a lot of big scary creatures. Do you have those in your yard??

Your mixing your geological eras, here. Its to be expected on one who cherry-picks his science information to support his views...

No idea what you are talking about.

This is a result of your cognitive dissonance. If you want me to re-cap the course of our discussion, I can do so, but you'll have to keep your own cranial signal-to-noise ratio in check for a while...

The lady in prov 8 witnessed the creation. Deal with it. And there were sons of man there in the garden, far as I am concerned, yntil you prove otherwise, and that just ain't gonna happen, I suspect!

You trample other aspects of Christian faith, in your effort to twist the Bible's stories to suit your views. A human birth in the Garden pre-Fall would mean that a human was born free from sin. What i know about Christianity indicates that there was one and only one person who was born free of sin, ever. Can you guess who?
No, I cannot disprove your assertions about there being sons of men in the Garden, just as you cannot prove them. I can only show you how it is inconsistent with what I (and you) know about other aspects of the Christian faith. But then you should also ask yourself, if it weren't so inconsistent with the rest of Christianity, you should have plenty of other creationists on this board who would be perfectly willing to tell this agnostic that he is wrong... If I'm wrong about this aspect of Christian faith, and there were in fact humans born in the Garden pre-Fall, and thus born free from sin, I'd encourage any of those other creationists to let me know about it. The significance of Divine, sin-free birth as a unique event to Christianity suggests otherwise.

Your position is devastated here, try and adjust accordingly, and move on.

I know it pains you to have an agnostic know more about certain aspects of your faith than you do. If it salves the wound, like so many other non-Christians here, I was raised in a Christian household, so its not as if the subject of your obsession is unknown to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or heres another time line, every atempt at explaining what we see through religion fails

Another strange effect that flood geology must account for is why post flood survival is dependent on the depth that your ancestors were buried. That is, the fossils at the top of the geologic column more closely resemble modern species than the species found deeper in the geologic column. How does "hydraulic sorting" predict post-flood survival? Did dinosaurs die off because their family got buried too deep?

 

[Vene]

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&#8217;s outer layer, the crust. Together, these 8 elements make up more than 98% of the crust.
The 8 most common elements in Earth&#8217;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.

I never said there wasn't commonality. I said that the major elements in humans do not match that which is found in dirt. Where is the carbon and the hydrogen. Organic life cannot exist without these. Actually, organic is defined by the presence of carbon. If humans came from dust we would expect to see dirt that is largely carbon based. We would see dirt that has large amounts of hydrogen. OR we would see humans who are largely silicon based, we would see humans without carbon or hydrogen (or maybe trace amounts). It just doesn't fit.

And provide evidence for your power surge claim.

 

[Vene]

That is because it likely is present state dna. So???

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how DNA is fundamentally changed by a flood. Not that small sequences mutate or that selection acts on it, but for the entire chemical structure to be altered.

 

[keith99]

Bah, I think you know what I mean. Even if the Bible is a good spiritual guide for some or gives people solace, why should that make it a good science textbook?

Is it clearer now?

Let's take it a bit further. Assume the Bible is true and correct. It clearly was written for spirtiual, cultural and ethical instruction. Why should it be useful for instruction in science.

Oh there are a few bits and pieces in some of the cleanleness laws and elsewhere, just as a biology text may touch a little on chemistry of physics, but by and large these do not cover the other sciences and do not try to cover nit picking details. If this is so within the physical sciences shouldn't it be even moreso between the sciences and something that is not science?

 

[dad]

How many places was the Garden of Eden?

One. And how many directions can birds fly, the wind blow, and animals walk??

 

[dad]

Dad and his kind do not have a leg to stand on, take the following image. This is fact, now every time they try to explain it, their arguments fall down, even the creationists who try dabbling with science end up falling down.

Nothing on there that is even a small challenge. Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Or heres another time line, every atempt at explaining what we see through religion fails

Fish had seas, and rivers and waterways to get around, amphibians were great for the sometimes swampy inhospitable earth, reptiles are a natural thing to follow. Birds possible competed with things like dinos, so one might expect a moderate approach, in a migration from Eden pattern, and mammals also.

Got any tough ones??

 

[dad]

And just to finish off today

Explain this you religious fundies

Now that is childishly simple. It is a bunch of skulls. The trick would be to separate the ape like thingies, from men.
To work on something like that, we should realize that man evolved. That started at Eden. Many differences can be expected. But I think you may be unable to get out of the kindergarten stages of just lumping them all together, as if it meant something.

 

[dad]

I only wonder what taxonomic level that diagram represents, because it's most certainly not species Hardly orders either, because modern reptiles only have four of those, so they'd be about the same size as amphibians... I guess we're seeing a lovely mammal-centric bias there.

</SJ Gould module>

Division in the ranks. Cool.

 

[dad]

If all life was created within a week of each other then we should find shed shark teeth in the bottom most life bearing layers (e.g. pre-cambrian strata). We don't. Therefore, creation falsified.

No, fish were created in the sea of Eden! No more than man should be all over.

 

[dad]

Your mixing your geological eras, here. Its to be expected on one who cherry-picks his science information to support his views...

Clarify. What era, if not the time coal was mostly laid down, do you want to look at?

This is a result of your cognitive dissonance. If you want me to re-cap the course of our discussion, I can do so, but you'll have to keep your own cranial signal-to-noise ratio in check for a while...

If that is what it takes to get you to focus, hurry up.

You trample other aspects of Christian faith, in your effort to twist the Bible's stories to suit your views.

Aren't you about as sweet as you are vague?

A human birth in the Garden pre-Fall would mean that a human was born free from sin.

Good point.

What i know about Christianity indicates that there was one and only one person who was born free of sin, ever. Can you guess who?
No, I cannot disprove your assertions about there being sons of men in the Garden, just as you cannot prove them. I can only show you how it is inconsistent with what I (and you) know about other aspects of the Christian faith. But then you should also ask yourself, if it weren't so inconsistent with the rest of Christianity, you should have plenty of other creationists on this board who would be perfectly willing to tell this agnostic that he is wrong... If I'm wrong about this aspect of Christian faith, and there were in fact humans born in the Garden pre-Fall, and thus born free from sin, I'd encourage any of those other creationists to let me know about it. The significance of Divine, sin-free birth as a unique event to Christianity suggests otherwise.

Well, no, you did have a good point there. But, before losing the idea, I might ask you this. How long was it from the fall, till the time they actually left the garden? A day, a month, 4 years??? And how would you know? Another angle is, if we are born under sin, how is it that other sons of Adam, if born in Eden would not be also under it?? Think about it.

I know it pains you to have an agnostic know more about certain aspects of your faith than you do.

Hey, no you did have a point, and I looked at it. The ball was already fired at breakneck speed, back into your agnostic court. From experience, these sort of games don't last long, but hey, maybe you'll get another lucky shot in??

If it salves the wound, like so many other non-Christians here, I was raised in a Christian household, so its not as if the subject of your obsession is unknown to me.

Aha. No wonder you had the wherewithal to get a sucker punch in. But I don't have a glass jaw, and have lightning reflexes. No worries over my side of the court.