-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Atheist challenge #2
- Thread starter adam332
- Start date
It doesn't matter anyway, I'll just talk with anyone who's on when I come back on. C-ya later everyone. Nice talkin' to ya.
Upvote
0
Did you not read the link I provided? Here, I'll quote a section for you:
"Presently, the earth's rotation is slowing down 0.005 seconds per year per year (Thwaites and Awbrey, 1982, p.19).
The actual rate of 0.005 seconds per year per year yields, if rolled back 4.6 billion years, a 14-hour day. The subject is a bit tricky the first time around, and I'm indebted to Thwaites and Awbrey (1982) whose fine article cleared away the cobwebs.
Let's do the calculation for 370 million years ago:
((0.005 sec/yr) x (370 million yr))/Year = (1,850,000 sec)/Year
= (21.4 days)/Year
Thus, at 370 million years ago, the earth had 21.4 extra days per year.
The total days then per year were: (365.25 + 21.4)days/Year = 386.65 days/Year.
(8766 hrs/Year)/(386.65 days/Year) = 22.7 hrs/day
If you do the same calculations for 4.6 billion years ago, you'll get the 14 hrs/day given by Drs. Thwaites and Awbrey. Thus, there is no problem here for mainstream science. Indeed, the present rate may be too high:"
Kid, the Earth varies its distance from the sun by 5 million kilometers each year. Look up "perihelion" and "aphelion".
So you assume that things not submerged in water don't rot? Try this experiment. Find a recently dead animals, bury it in your yard, wait a few years, then tell me if its skeleton remains perfectly intact.
I asked for a source. Provide one.
You're right. You may want to look at how early Biblical stories were passed around, though (hint: think illiteracy).
Provide a specific source. I'm not going to do the work for you.
Read lucaspa's post on the same page.
We know how plate tectonics work. We know the rate at which they move. Why would we assume it was created differently?
Again, provide something specific, kid.
So far, you've proven squat. Try again.
Upvote
0
If it happended before the flood, then anything below it would be pre-flood, including all of the fossils that are there, so those fossils would not indicate that the geologic column was created by the flood.
If it happened after the flood, then anything above it would be post-flod including all of th fossils that are there so those fossils would not indicate that the geologic column was created by the flood.
These features falsify the explanation of the fossil record being created at one time by a world wide flood. These features are shown throughout the fossil record and indicate that no matter what layer I pick, I can find evidence that fallsifies that either the layers above it or below were cause by massive world wide flooding. The geologic column cannot be used a evidence for worldwide flooding.
You are admitting that yourself with your answers.
You can't tell me how I could tell the difference in a layer that was pre-flood or post-flood. Given ANY layer of the geologic column, you can find evidence that would fasify the hypothesis that it was layed down at the same time as the layers above and below it through some sort of sorting method.
That is the point. There are many features in the fossil record that cannot be explained by rapid depositing of sediment over a short time period and and by the same mechanism as all of the rest of the layers. There are differences in the layers that show us how they formed, how long it took, and what was living when the layer was layed down. There is no way to reconcile this type of evidence with a world wide flood hypothesis.
Upvote
0
Mechanical Bliss
Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
First of all, the crust is made up of crystalline rock at the base overlain by a thin layer of sediments. Second, your "experiment" is NOT representative of how this sedimentation occurs.
This process takes a long time because:
(1) The sediments had to come from somewhere. First of all, a source rock has to be weathered by mechanical or chemical processes. This takes time. We can conduct experiments that measure the rate of weathering for various types of materials in the field of geochemistry. It takes some minerals longer to be eroded from a rock than others. It also depends on the composition of the solution if water is doing the weathering. There are many variables to consider. The sediments that make up the geologic record are NOT uniform in composition.
(2) The sediments had to be transported and deposited somewhere. Depositional mechanisms include wind, water, and even precipitation of dissolved elements in water. We can measure deposition rates of mechanisms based upon the influx of sediments at the reservoir source and the strength of the mechanism to carry this sedimentary load. We can also conduct experiments measuring the rate at which precipitation of dissolved material occurs from a solution by measuring the solubility of those elements and how saturated the solution needs to be (and what temperature) to determine the rate. This takes a considerable amount of time.
(3) Sediments that are deposited are NOT rock. What we see in the geologic record are lithified sediments (i.e., rock), not unconsolidated sediments like in your jar with muddy water. This process takes a considerable amount of time to actually form rock from sediments. It can occur due to pressure of overlying sedimentary layers or a fluid can permeate through the sediments and precipitate a cement that consolidates the sediment. The rate of this process can be measured as well considering several variables (temperature and pressure, for two).
Your jar of muddy water is not the same as in geological reality. Most importantly is that your jar of muddy water is not rock nor does it fully represent the sedimentary rock cycle. Your model is not representative, period.
No, they don't. This is another gross misconception of geology it appears you have. Geologists don't arbitrarily say "each layer of rock represents one million years" as you seem to imply. Geologists DO say that the rock on the bottom is older than the rock on the top (except in the situation of thrust faulting and overturned bedding which are easily identifiable). That is called the principle of superposition. The age difference between different layers of rock depends on the processes that formed them and their composition. There are many factors to consider when determining how much time is represented by a sedimentary stratum.
The problem is we don't see this type of distribution in the record. The geologic record is not stratified by the density of the sediments that compose it. It is indeed stratified by age. We know this because of radiometric dating, fossils contained in the geologic record, and the principle of superposition.
If what you said was true, we would only see denser, larger particle sized-sediments on the bottom of the stratigraphic record and only silt at the top. We see no such thing. Instead we see layers of varying densities, compositions, and sediment sizes not only vertically, but also horizontally. That means as one layer is deposited in a certain environment (desert, for example) another layer is being deposited in another environment (a river/fluvial environment, for example) at the same time, but at different spatial locations.
If the flood was true, there would be ONE uniform layer horizontally worldwide. The layer would also be either extremely mixed or extremely sorted by density. We would also expect certain rock types to be present (limestone overlain by sandstone, for example as one sequence) based upon what we know about marine deposition.
So, what you need to do is point out the stratum or set of strata located in the same stratigraphic position (vertically) and found worldwide with a certain sequence of rocks and depositional structures. Since there is no such stratum or set of strata, I'll save you the time and tell you that what is predicted to have formed by a global flood is NOT found, and should be found if the flood occured because it happened extremely recently in earth's history, supposedly.
No, not just the evolutionary scientist, but the geologists as well. This is necessarily so as has been proven by paleontology, high temperature geochemical experiments with radioactive elements, and stratigraphy.
Wrong. The oldest tree is the Bristlecone pine whose age is about 5000 years old, if I remember correctly.
Wrong. Whoever told you this is a liar. One of the various official Niagara Falls websites (as the others concur) states that:
Niagara falls is approximately 12,000 years old. Not even close.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
I live about 4 hours drive south of Niagra Falls. There were glaciers here that did not melt off tell 10,000 years ago. When the glaciers melted off, then the Indians began to travel though this area in the summer looking for food. I live on a portage they used long ago, to take their canoe out of the river to go around a water falls here where my ancestors built this city. They built here, because they used the power from the water falls to run a mill.
This last summer we went on a little boat trip on the river. They showed us a plant that is very much like a potato, that at the end of the season the indians would eat. It is still there growing after thousands of years.
Upvote
0
JohnR7
Well-Known Member
The falls are pretty much just a tourist trap today. They have reduced the flow of water to 50 percent during the day and 20 percent at night. They would like to shut them down to divert the water for power and industry, but that may upset people a bit.
When it comes to water, even here in the East people fight over it. How much more in the west.
Upvote
0
To Notto,
There is no such thing as the geologic column, Charles Lyell made it up two-hundred years ago, the only place you will find a complete and accurate geologic column is in the textbook. I don't really want to find all my sources from some guy (who was extremely biased by the way) who was a lawyer who lived 200 years ago. I'd rather agree with God on this. You base your evidence on the geologic column which does not exist. Like I said earlier, the geologic column is made up using circular reasoning. I know its like a bible to you, and I'm sorry to talk about it this way, but its true.
There is no such thing as the geologic column, Charles Lyell made it up two-hundred years ago, the only place you will find a complete and accurate geologic column is in the textbook. I don't really want to find all my sources from some guy (who was extremely biased by the way) who was a lawyer who lived 200 years ago. I'd rather agree with God on this. You base your evidence on the geologic column which does not exist. Like I said earlier, the geologic column is made up using circular reasoning. I know its like a bible to you, and I'm sorry to talk about it this way, but its true.
Upvote
0
To mechanical,
Please see Dr. Hovinds explanation for radiometric dating at www-drdino-com. And about the layers. You say that the layer would either be really mixed up, or one big layer all around the earth. Keep in mind that though the water during the flood was moving, it wasn't moving terribly fast, or else Noah wouldn't have survived. Near the beginning of the flood, Some layers would be sorted out. Then as the water got higher, more and more layer were added on, but not all of the dirt was mixed. And when I said that geologists assume that each layer is a million years older than the one before, I was aware that wasn't the total truth, I was really just making a point. That the evolutionary explanation is absurd (I'm sorry to say) And what about the coal layers that are separated by supposedly thousands of years of rock, meet only a few feet down the line. That sounds like a flaw to me.
Please see Dr. Hovinds explanation for radiometric dating at www-drdino-com. And about the layers. You say that the layer would either be really mixed up, or one big layer all around the earth. Keep in mind that though the water during the flood was moving, it wasn't moving terribly fast, or else Noah wouldn't have survived. Near the beginning of the flood, Some layers would be sorted out. Then as the water got higher, more and more layer were added on, but not all of the dirt was mixed. And when I said that geologists assume that each layer is a million years older than the one before, I was aware that wasn't the total truth, I was really just making a point. That the evolutionary explanation is absurd (I'm sorry to say) And what about the coal layers that are separated by supposedly thousands of years of rock, meet only a few feet down the line. That sounds like a flaw to me.
Upvote
0
I base my evidence on what we find in the ground in the layers you say are caused by sorting during the worldwide flood.
How can you explain fossilized
- raindrop marks
- footprints
- worm tracks
- ant hills
- termite mounds
- fossilized rooted plants
- salt formations
all, inbetween the layers that were caused by sorting. This evidence falsifies the idea that these layers were layed down by sorting at the same time. Many of these need to be done in dry soil. The proof is there inside the ground. We dig it up. Regardless of the "Geologic" column, it is there.
By the way, you might want to read this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/
"This article is a detailed examination of the young earth creationist claim that the geologic column does not exist. It is shown that the entire geologic column exists in North Dakota. I do this not to disprove the Bible but to encourage Christians who are in the area of apologetics to do a better job of getting the facts straight."
And as for your comment on what I accept as the bible, I would appreciate it if you would keep comments about my faith to yourself. I have not insulted your faith or beliefs, I have simply presented evidence and asked you questions to show you where you (and your sources) are misrepresenting scientific data, evidence, and theories.
I am a Christian and like many other Christians, my faith does not hinge on this debate. Show me evidence that will overthrow evolution and I will stop accepting it tommorrow. I have yet been presented with this evidence.
Many Christians accept evolution.
Upvote
0
Tacoman, I asked you this in the other thread, but I'll ask again here. Since you take such stock in what "Dr" Hovind preaches, would you consider trying to get a college degree from the same college that "Dr" Hovind received his? Here's a shot of the university listed on his "PHD" in education.
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm
And here is some info on the university:
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/patriot.htm
And here is some info on the university:
Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University in Colorado. According to Hovind, his 250-page dissertation was on the topic of the dangers of teaching evolution in the public schools. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot University is accredited only by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge. Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32 per credit. The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot University as a degree mill
Upvote
0
If you want to try to convince me (and others on this forum) then bring something to table like evidence, research, anything. Blind assertations don't make for compelling arguments.
But you said, "Even if the earth were 1 kilometer closer, it would eventually become too hot for life". Do you have something to back up this claim, or were you just blowing smoke?
The key there is "unless it was disturbed". Over a long period of time, a lot can happen to disturb things in the Earth, like seismic activity, erosion (both wind and water), chemical reactions, other living organisms, etc. Fossilization is a rare process that requires specific conditions for it to occur. It doesn't just happen to all dead things.
I'm not going to hunt for source material to back up your argument. That's your job, not mine. If you can't be bothered, then I'll just assume that you have nothing on which you base your claims. (And just for the record, I've watched all of Hovind's videos and read a lot of creationist literature, including numerous articles from places like AIG and ICR. However, when compared to scientific counter-arguments, I put stock in what science says.)
Why would I assume the Earth wasn't? There's plenty of evidence *for* an old Earth. All of the "evidence" I've seen promoting a young Earth are usually just attempts to discredit the evidence for an old Earth, or are based on flawed methodology (and they always come from the point of religious bias, rather than objective science).
Oh, and before you go off on a tangent about the "problems" with radiometric dating, please read this page: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. It details how radiometric dating works, why it works, and even lists common misconceptions.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
