YEC and Fossil Fuels

[ragarth]

Oh yes, and it's interesting that you chose the mariana trench as your example. Did you know that since the first measurement in 1951, we've gotten several different depths? This is due to variations in methods as well as it's bottom not being perfect. So it's actually wise to check multiple sources on this topic, because you will get several different answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

You also totally ignored the rest of my statement about using multiple sources to corroborate evidence.

You may use as many sources as you wish, Ragarth --- I choose to use one Source --- and a Source that says it was witnessed by many people.

Unless you're going to make the disengenious claim that there's a massive world wide conspiracy about the depth of the mariana trench, which I highly doubt, then getting similar answers numerous times over the years using various methods of gauging the depth of the mariana trench is more reliable than a single book after multiple translation that's lacking in objective detail and accuracy and without citation.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Bible's veracity is not the subject of this thread.

Suffice it to say, our motto is: The Bible says it --- that settles it.

So you just go ahead and spend all the time in the world to corroborate the depth of the Mariana Trench from all these sources you've mentioned; I've got my own Single-Source of all the information I need to pwn this fossil fuel theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yes, and it's interesting that you chose the mariana trench as your example. Did you know that since the first measurement in 1951, we've gotten several different depths? This is due to variations in methods as well as it's bottom not being perfect. So it's actually wise to check multiple sources on this topic, because you will get several different answers.

Go figure --- that's science for you --- today's news is tomorrow's shred pile.

And for the point you just made --- I like to use the Periodic Table of the Elements for that.

 

[ragarth]

You may use as many sources as you wish, Ragarth --- I choose to use one Source --- and a Source that says it was witnessed by many people.I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Bible's veracity is not the subject of this thread.

Your choice, but I do feel obligated to point out this stated circular logic:

"I choose one source --- and a source that says it was witnessed by many people."

In other words, you believe something because it says it's believable.

And by the way, I provided a manmade machine to match this description:

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Do I get a sucker?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your choice, but I do feel obligated to point out this stated circular logic:

"I choose one source --- and a source that says it was witnessed by many people."

In other words, you believe something because it says it's believable.

There's one major thing that keeps God's Word from being circular, and that's the nation of Israel --- but you guys' won't recognize the prophecies concerning Israel and, in so doing, set up your own blind spot.

And that's your prerogative --- but I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is all It says It is, and thus our motto applies.

No, you don't get a sucker.

 

[MoonLancer]

When you can build a machine that can do this ------ then we'll have something to talk about.

are you kidding? they have LSD for that, or Payode.

 

[AV1611VET]

are you kidding. they have lsd for that.

I don't doubt it.

 

[MoonLancer]

and a Source that says it was witnessed by many people.I'm sure you'll agree with me that the Bible's veracity is not the subject of this thread.

too bad these many people all contradict each other.

why are their so many inconsistencies between Mathew Mark Luke and John? Like how they keep adding more and more each time the next one tells the story? was Their an angel in Jesus tomb or was it empty?

maybe they should have collaborated their "story'

 

[MoonLancer]

I don't doubt it.

so your admitting that the exprences those in the bible had with good could have been drugs instead? good to know.

 

[AV1611VET]

too bad these many people all contradict each other.

why are their so many inconsistencies between Mathew Mark Luke and John? Like how they keep adding more and more each time the next one tells the story? was Their an angel in Jesus tomb or was it empty?

maybe they should have collaborated their "story'

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

 

[Split Rock]

Go figure --- that's science for you --- today's news is tomorrow's shred pile.

And for the point you just made --- I like to use the Periodic Table of the Elements for that.

You just love repeating your incorrect notions over and over again. The funniest thing about that is that you blame us for forcing you to repeat yourself!

I cannot beleive I forgot the Periodic Table! In honor of you bringing it up again, I have revised the Drinking Game. It is a little more user friendly now.

The New and Revised AVET Drinking Game:
1 Shot: Every time AVET mentions The Space Shuttle disaster or Thalidomide.
2 Shots:: Every time AVET mentions the Periodic Table, or the Marianas Trench.
3 Shots: Every time AVET mentions his Apple Challenge
4 Shots: Every time AVET mentions Pluto.
5 Shots: Every time AVET claims to have "pwned" some one else

 

[Split Rock]

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

Was the Bible designed (CREVO Term!) so that new elements could be added once they had been found in nature or created in a lab??

 

[AV1611VET]

Was the Bible designed (CREVO Term!) so that new elements could be added once they had been found in nature or created in a lab??

No --- was the Periodic Table?

It seems like every time I look at it, it's different.

One has all the elements by numbers, another has a series of elements out to the side, one has a series of elements missing altogether, one has a series at the bottom.

And is there a note on it somewhere that says:

• Note: this table may not contain all the elements, and may indeed be incomplete.

The Bible, by contrast, is a completed Book containing Truth.

 

[MoonLancer]

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

lol, your want to drag every thread unto muck and love doing it. whats so different about this?

Are you proposing people adding contradicting details to witnessed events giving it more divine jazz is akin to people adding elements to a list of known elements? The first clearly shows the account of a false witness, the second is the expansion of known knowledge.

theirs no double standard. only a learning curve.

So was their an angle at Jesus tomb or not?

 

[Baggins]

Time needed to make oil is different from the age of the source rock. You should not mix the two.

Oil made in formation as young as Pleistocene is possible.

I didn't mix the two up as anyone who reads my post can quite clearly see.

Oil may be present in the rocks of Pleistocene age, but it was not generated in rocks of Pleistocene age unless you can show differently.

Once again; it is quite obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of petroleum geology to see that the YEC world view is at odds for the time taken for oil source rocks to be produced, buried, for them to generate commercial quantities of oil, for that oil to migrate through overlying rocks and for the migrated oil to collect in a reservoir.

That takes millions of years not 6000 years. The youngest oil source rocks that have generated commercial oil deposits are Middle Miocene, the age of the reservoir is completely beside the point of this discussion, but if you knew anything about geology you'd know that.

 

[Baggins]

You just love repeating your incorrect notions over and over again. The funniest thing about that is that you blame us for forcing you to repeat yourself!

I cannot beleive I forgot the Periodic Table! In honor of you bringing it up again, I have revised the Drinking Game. It is a little more user friendly now.

The New and Revised AVET Drinking Game:
1 Shot: Every time AVET mentions The Space Shuttle disaster or Thalidomide.
2 Shots:: Every time AVET mentions the Periodic Table, or the Marianas Trench.
3 Shots: Every time AVET mentions his Apple Challenge
4 Shots: Every time AVET mentions Pluto.
5 Shots: Every time AVET claims to have "pwned" some one else

6 Shots: Every time AVET claims to eat "someone" for breakfast

 

[tanzanos]

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

Wrong! The periodic table had empty slots which were later filled in; the characteristics of the respective elements were known before they were physically discovered. That is because Atomic theory specifies those characteristics. A very good Book to read (if you can find it) is "Search for the elements" By Asimov.

Av, a little erudition will not harm you nor your faith.

 

[Cabal]

When you can build a machine that can do this ------ then we'll have something to talk about.

Irrelevant to the question, answer it again, please. Why are you posting statements you've already agreed won't contribute anything to the question?

 

[Cabal]

If you don't --- and you go through life believing it is 6.8 miles deep because others have confirmed it --- do you mind if I do the same thing with believing Jesus walked on water?

How about actually getting Jesus back here and doing it again? Then the statements would be equivalent (you know, because science has reproducibility, which increases the accuracy of an observation)

I'll give you a hint, He won't - think that counts as putting God to the test, I suspect. Historical documentation is about a one-off that may or may not have happened. Scientific documentation is about confirming or refuting existing data. If the former, the observations become stronger for it.

Let's not drag this into this thread, okay?

The Periodic Table has been changed umpteen times, and that doesn't bother you guys one bit, because it's done in the name of "improvement".

You see what you think are changes in the Bible, and you have bug fits.

So I'm really not interested in your double standards.

The Periodic Table doesn't contain a claim within to be literally infallible (actually, it doesn't say that, but you think it does, so let's roll with it for now) and inspired by God, last time I checked. Maybe they keep hiding it under the lanthanides and actinides.

And you're definitely one to know what a double standard is - Pluto/dinobirds much? (among others)

 

[AV1611VET]

How about actually getting Jesus back here and doing it again?

QV please: 1 .