YEC and Fossil Fuels

[Cabal]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Man --- this line of rhetoric is reminiscent of my old Millard Fillmore thread, where I challenged anyone to prove he existed without placing their faith in any kind of documentation.

I might recreate it --- just for fun.
​

He who calleth forth the zombie thread, shall he after abideth long enough for ye regrets?

Hath we not seen zombies enough, and more, that ye should call forth yet more onto us?

Verily I say unto you, I calleth not for teh zomb1e threads, but the essence therein. The Zombie Overlord of 1611 wouldst make his dubious claim before any debate commenceth.

 

[ragarth]

For about, what, the fourth time? --- I am not --- repeat: not --- talking about those who have been there --- I am talking about those who will never go there, yet will believe what those who have been there and did all this sonar and laser stuff.

It's getting close to "/thread" time, fellas --- step it up, please.

And I'm providing proof that the accuracy of the documentation for the depth of the mariana's trench is far greater than the accuracy of Jesus walking on water. Since the depth of the mariana's trench has far more information backing it up from multiple sources and multiple methods, it's a safer bet than Jesus walking on water.

So, this goes to a thread I have going in the philosophy section right now: How do you know when your faith is poorly placed? The best answer I've gotten thus far is when the facts are against it.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I'm providing proof that the accuracy of the documentation for the depth of the mariana's trench is far greater than the accuracy of Jesus walking on water.

Not hardly.

How do you know the extent of its verification in the era that it happened?

Just like terminal velocity, once a threshold is reached, you can't go any further; and once Jesus' walking on water was verified, that's it --- what more do you need?

As I said in my Mariana Trench thread - (now gone do to it being created in General Apologetics) - what if everyone on the whole planet actually measured the depth themselves, except you, and they unanimously came up with 6.8 miles --- unanimously?

You would still be taking their statements on faith if you believed it w/o going there yourself.

That's just the nature of faith --- and faith can be very powerful and very dangerous.

Since the depth of the mariana's trench has far more information backing it up from multiple sources and multiple methods, it's a safer bet than Jesus walking on water.

I don't believe that.

So, this goes to a thread I have going in the philosophy section right now: How do you know when your faith is poorly placed? The best answer I've gotten thus far is when the facts are against it.

When it displeases God ---

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[Cabal]

Just like terminal velocity, once a threshold is reached, you can't go any further; and once Jesus' walking on water was verified, that's it --- what more do you need?

So in other words, once is enough for a Godly one-off miracle, but science has to be verified by everyone even for basic everyday facts? Bit unbalanced, surely...

 

[AV1611VET]

So in other words, once is enough for a Godly one-off miracle, but science has to be verified by everyone even for basic everyday facts? Bit unbalanced, surely...

That's the nature of miracles, and that's the nature of faith.

People accept them irregardless of repeat-on-demand insistences.

 

[Cabal]

That's the nature of miracles, and that's the nature of faith.

People accept them irregardless of repeat-on-demand insistences.

Like I keep saying, maybe you should stop comparing the two then. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to keep conflating the two at this stage...

 

[ragarth]

Not hardly.

How do you know the extent of its verification in the era that it happened?

Just like terminal velocity, once a threshold is reached, you can't go any further; and once Jesus' walking on water was verified, that's it --- what more do you need?

As I said in my Mariana Trench thread - (now gone do to it being created in General Apologetics) - what if everyone on the whole planet actually measured the depth themselves, except you, and they unanimously came up with 6.8 miles --- unanimously?

You would still be taking their statements on faith if you believed it w/o going there yourself.

That's just the nature of faith --- and faith can be very powerful and very dangerous.I don't believe that.When it displeases God ---

TAIRA. K., S. KITAGAWA, T. YAMASHIRO and D. YANAGIMOTO:
Deep and bottom currents in the Challenger Deep, Mariana Trench, measured with super-deep current meters.
Journal of Oceanography, 60, 919-926, 2004.

TAIRA, K., D. YANAGIMOTO and S. KITAGAWA:
Deep CTD casts in the Challenger Deep, Mariana Trench.
Journal of Oceanography, 61, 447-454, 2005.

Gooday, A. Work referred to in 'The ultimate high-pressure job: surviving on the seabed' (microbes collected by Kaiko ROV in Challenger Deep), Independent, 4 Feb 2005, p.17.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Biolo...ch-Challenger-Deep-at-a-depth-of-11000-m.html

and some information on the Kaiko ROV used:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/l...13/00528882.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=528882

So, lots of data. This is just a snippet of the information available on the Challenger Deep (deepest part of the mariana trench) and the methods used to measure it as well as some other things.

Now let's contrast this with Jesus walking on water:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 14:22-33

Okay! So AV, from that, tell me the depth of the water Jesus walked on, how much Jesus weighed. Was he wearing sandals, barefoot, or combat boots? What distance did Jesus walk? Now, how does your capacity to answer those questions compare to my capacity to answer data about measuring the depths of the Mariana's Trench?

As you can see, there's more information for the depth of the Mariana's Trench, it's provided by multiple methods working independently, from multiple sources, all providing large amounts of detail.

But given how you've acted thus far in this thread, I expect you'll totally ignore my actual point and restate evidence that has little to do with the point I'm making.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

There is no reason to limit the minimum age of oil to Miocene. As long as T, P and other conditions are there, oil could be younger than Pleistocene (or, made in the lab yesterday). There are many Pliocene shales found in basins of 5000 meters or deeper. And it is not uncommon that they produces gas instead of oil.

One step back, even the minimum age of oil is Miocene, it is still within the domain of a YE.

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is crazy. It is like a bunch of hyenas chasing the shadow of a lion. The goalpost is nowhere to see.

Bye. Take care, AV.

 

[Split Rock]

Like I keep saying, maybe you should stop comparing the two then. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to keep conflating the two at this stage...

Well said.

That's the nature of miracles, and that's the nature of faith.

People accept them irregardless of repeat-on-demand insistences.

AVET: Do you have a good reason for conflating "faith" in the research that others do based on physical measurements that are presented and analysized in peer-reviewed literature with "faith" in Jesus and in the infallibility of the Bible? Or is it all just muddying the waters?

 

[AV1611VET]

AVET: Do you have a good reason for conflating "faith" in the research that others do based on physical measurements that are presented and analysized in peer-reviewed literature with "faith" in Jesus and in the infallibility of the Bible? Or is it all just muddying the waters?

Absolutely none, whatsoever --- the two are the same.

Faith = facts accepted in the heart.

 

[Cabal]

Absolutely none, whatsoever --- the two are the same.

Faith = facts accepted in the heart.

What about the brain?*






*for a change....

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith = facts accepted in the heart.

What about the brain?*

It doesn't fit the acronym --- FAITB?

 

[gaara4158]

It doesn't fit the acronym --- FAITB?

So faith is accepting what sounds right, not what is right?

 

[Cabal]

It doesn't fit the acronym --- FAITB?

Say it when you have a cold?

Acronyms aside, scientific facts aren't absorbed through the heart.

 

[mpok1519]

faith isnt in your heart.

Your heart is used for blood flow.

Your brain is what makes faith; that feeling of "God is watching me" comes from one's electrical impulses in one's brain, not their heart.

People used to think emotions came from your bowels back in the day. Just a piece of useless info....

 

[Split Rock]

Absolutely none, whatsoever --- the two are the same.

Faith = facts accepted in the heart.

But I don't accept the depth of the Marianas Trench in "the heart." If someone comes up with a better estimate, I will reject the old one without a second thought. Will you ever do so with Jesus? If not, then they are NOT the same. If you cannot see the difference, then you are purposely being obtuse.

 

[Split Rock]

faith isnt in your heart.

Your heart is used for blood flow.

Your brain is what makes faith; that feeling of "God is watching me" comes from one's electrical impulses in one's brain, not their heart.

People used to think emotions came from your bowels back in the day. Just a piece of useless info....

Another mistake written in the Bible.

 

[BananaSlug]

AV, care to try to argue about anything in post #178? I mentioned your beloved "Periodic Table."

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, care to try to argue about anything in post #178? I mentioned your beloved "Periodic Table."

Nope --- I'm through with this.

It's like banging my head against a brick wall.

But if it helps any, I'll cut out using the Periodic Table as an example of incomplete science, as it's clear from your post that Mendeleev predicted elements would be added.