A question for Old Earth Creationists

[LittleLambofJesus]

If I want a worthless opinion of man, I might ask you.

Now dad, if that were true you would not be arguing with me.

Try again.

Ya gotta point there....


.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Testing again, don't complain it is an excellent piece of music:

Schubertas Forellen Quintett/Trout Quintet D.667 Op114 piano,violin,viola,cello & double-bass - YouTube

 

[RickG]

All ice cores are post-flood, and they can build up quite quickly. Ever hear of the lost squadron?

Yes I have, in fact I even created a thread on it about a month ago. I also provided a link. Here, I do it again.

The lost squadron - creation.com

It claims ice core chronology doesn't work based on where the planes landed and the amount of snow and ice covering them. The article doesn't even begin to talk about any facet of ice core chronology. The author of the article doesn't even have a clue what he is talking about. In fact, there has never been an ice core taken from the area of the planes because that area is an unstable glacier. The reason the planes were under 75 meters of snow is because that area of Southeast Greenland gets 2 plus meters of snow a year.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Yes I have, in fact I even created a thread on it about a month ago. I also provided a link. Here, I do it again.

The lost squadron - creation.com

It claims ice core chronology doesn't work based on where the planes landed and the amount of snow and ice covering them. The article doesn't even begin to talk about any facet of ice core chronology. The author of the article doesn't even have a clue what he is talking about. In fact, there has never been an ice core taken from the area of the planes because that area is an unstable glacier. The reason the planes were under 75 meters of snow is because that area of Southeast Greenland gets 2 plus meters of snow a year.

And how do you know the flood didn't create all those ice layers in the past, just the same way? Where you there to see what happened with the flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how do you know the flood didn't create all those ice layers in the past, just the same way? Where you there to see what happened with the flood?

Once again:

Rain Shadow. Google search the topic.

And we know the flood did not make them since ice floats. Or did you forget that fact.

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Once again:

Rain Shadow. Google search the topic.

And we know the flood did not make them since ice floats. Or did you forget that fact.

You have no way of knowing how this would work in the midst of a global flood, unless you can produce the event.

Observation, remember? Scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no way of knowing how this would work in the midst of a global flood, unless you can produce the event.

Observation, remember? Scientific method?

Sure we do. And this was not "during the flood". We know that there was no flood.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood anywhere. It is quite the opposite. Whenever a deposit is investigated, whenever a landform is analyzed we can see that it was the product of slow steady causes. Anything else is extremely rare and obvious.

 

[RickG]

You have no way of knowing how this would work in the midst of a global flood, unless you can produce the event.

Observation, remember? Scientific method?

Ah yes! You must be speaking of the 8200 Lake Agassiz outburst event. It did cause a significant sea level rise.

 

[RickG]

Testing again, don't complain it is an excellent piece of music:

Schubertas Forellen Quintett/Trout Quintet D.667 Op114 piano,violin,viola,cello & double-bass - YouTube

Awsome!

 

[dad]

Well I'll be delighted to dad. Below I will describe through three independent methods how we know the past has been he same.

What I provide is physical evidence based on the laws of nature. What you have suggested is a made up fantasy world. You are the only one doing coloring and tainting.

1. Decay rates:

a. When a radionuclided decays it emits energy, therefore heat. For decay rates to have been higher in the past to yield the ages we get with rocks millions or billions of years of age in only 4,300 years (since the flood), the earth would have become completely molten. Thus absolutely no life could have existed before the flood.
b. In chain decays, for example the uranium series, goes through 18 separate decays before becoming stable as lead. Each of these separate decays forms a different isotope with a completely different decay rate. Thus, any rocks formed before said flood with said accelerated decay rate would show different ratios between each of those 18 isotopes than those formed after said flood. All rocks formed before and after said flood (said change of physics) would show different ratios in the decay chains. And uranium is not the only decay chain, there are others and there are no decay ratio changes.​

We need this state to HAVE decay. First you need to prove it existed, rather than dancing off as if it did claiming stuff about decay or other features OF THIS STATE.

2. Measured decay rates from supernova:

a. SN1987A is 168,000 light years distant, or if you prefer, 51.4 kiloparsecs distant. One parsec is 19 trillion miles. So we not only have time, but measured distance as well. Gamma rays emitted from SN198A for isotope decay for several radionuclides measured showed that those decay rates of those isotopes are the same which were generated 168,000 years ago are the same as we measure on earth today.
b. SN1987B - same scenario.​

No, 51.4 kiloparsecs is NOT equal to years in time unless time exists the same as here in deep space! You must FIRST prove that before claiming it. We will not simply swallow any claim you care to make without proof here.

3. Ice core chronology:

a. Ice cores have been dated on the Greenland ice cap upwards to 100,000 years. Cores in Antarctica date to 800,000 years.
b. Ice core chronology dates annual layers, which are easily distinguishable from multiple seasonal snowfalls.
c. There are numerous different (independent) proxies that can be used to not only distinguish annual layers, but seasons within as well. Some of these are heavy stable isotope ratios, acidity, pollen, Sodium and Chloride ions, ammonium, Lead, Sulphates, Nitrates.
​

You MUST have a present state world to have ice deposited at rates and ways we now know it is accumulated! You cannot run around wily nily claiming some same state past just because a godless religion falsely called science requires one!!!


A BIG gong to you.

 

[theophilus777]

Into what? The problem of Noah's Ark is insurmountable for Christians.

As told it is the tale of an incompetent, vicious, irresponsible God.

Haha no. All you show is that you do not understand such a simple story.

His creation was flawed so he kills everyone and blames them. That is not just no matter how you spin it. There never was a justification for the flood. So man was sinful in nature. So what? Who made man?

Ok so you don't understand the very first story either. Tell me again how you used to be a Christian?

 

[theophilus777]

Also, he made them without the knowledge of good and evil....so, when they supposedly 'disobeyed' his instructions about eating from the tree that would give them that knowledge, they cannot have known that what they were doing was 'bad'...

No, that is not at all what it means. They knew right from wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

Also, he made them without the knowledge of good and evil....so, when they supposedly 'disobeyed' his instructions about eating from the tree that would give them that knowledge, they cannot have known that what they were doing was 'bad'...

Their punishment was therefore grossly unjust....

He gave Adam specific instructions. Adam didn't follow specific instructions.

It's not complicated.

 

[theophilus777]

No one has any credible independent support for these explanations, other than a specific interpretation and lets face it, they are a dime a dozen.

There aren't too many ways to make the whole thing fit together, no. And it takes a lot more than a dime to get one, let alone a dozen.

 

[bhsmte]

There aren't too many ways to make the whole thing fit together, no. And it takes a lot more than a dime to get one, let alone a dozen.

All it takes is the psychological need to create an explanation and those are a dime a dozen.

 

[theophilus777]

All it takes is the psychological need to create an explanation and those are a dime a dozen.

"Psychological need to create an explanation," what is that supposed to mean? No, logic doesn't just poof into existence that easily.

 

[bhsmte]

"Psychological need to create an explanation," what is that supposed to mean? No, logic doesn't just poof into existence that easily.

Who said logic had anything to do with the explanation of one's choosing?

If you really want to believe something, the psychological need to do so, will help you along with creative explanations that help you reconcile (in your own mind) the bible, or specific religious beliefs, with reality.

 

[biggles53]

No, that is not at all what it means. They knew right from wrong.

If they already knew what "wrong" meant, then what was the point of eating from a tree which gave them "knowledge of good and evil"...?

I mean, they didn't even know what nakedness was until they ate from that tree, according to the myth...

You can't have it both ways....either they were complete innocents, who had no concept of right or wrong until they ate that fruit, or they were aware, in which case eating the fruit would be no big deal....

 

[justlookinla]

If they already knew what "wrong" meant, then what was the point of eating from a tree which gave them "knowledge of good and evil"...?

I mean, they didn't even know what nakedness was until they ate from that tree, according to the myth...

You can't have it both ways....either they were complete innocents, who had no concept of right or wrong until they ate that fruit, or they were aware, in which case eating the fruit would be no big deal....

Or they were disobedient. It's not like Adam didn't have an intimate relationship with His Father.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who said logic had anything to do with the explanation of one's choosing?

It's a theological thing.

In your current condition, you wouldn't understand.

If you really want to believe something, the psychological need to do so, will help you along with creative explanations that help you reconcile (in your own mind) the bible, or specific religious beliefs, with reality.

What keeps us reconciled then?