Creation vs Evolution

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If any creationist has misled or deviated from the truth then that shows how nobody is perfect.

... I am very sorry that you have a story to tell that is contrary to the truth but there are bad apples on every apple tree.

Interesting double standard - if (in your opinion) creationists mislead or 'deviate from the truth' it shows how nobody's perfect, but if an atheist does it they're a 'bad apple'...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There are many rocks and formations on the surface of the earth that science claims that are as old as the earth itself and yet science tells us that almost all the giant craters that covered this planet at one time have been washed and eroded away isn't that funny.

Geology is clearly not your strong point.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Daniel J. Boorstin

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So the student can keep an open mind rather than just pushing science down their throats.

A science class is for the teaching and learning of science.

Good science education positively encourages keeping an open mind - something that religious education could benefit from, just not so open that your brains fall out.

 

[Walk together]

Geology is clearly not your strong point.

I think you should read all the threads from the start as comprehension really isn't one of your strong points. I made it clear that my belief is that the earth is 6000 years young so my point regarding the age of the rocks is meaningless. remember comprehension, must learn that before you can debate but then again you haven't debated anything that I can see.

 

[Walk together]

Interesting double standard - if (in your opinion) creationists mislead or 'deviate from the truth' it shows how nobody's perfect, but if an atheist does it they're a 'bad apple'...

You are the bad apple for falsely accusing me I will forgive you as it is a consequence of your lack of comprehension. I will wait for you to fly in and drop another bomb and then fly off.

 

[Astrophile]

When I see the rolling hills that traverse the landscape and the great mountains that line the coasts I see a great flood that changed the face of the earth. The weight of Noah's flood would have been so heavy that it cracked the continental shelves and formed the mountains and continents that we have today. As the water subsided and flooded the lower areas the hills were formed just like ripples in the sand. So I see the largest landscaping event since the start of the creation itself. God has presented to us the evidence on the ground that we stand upon.

When I see the rolling hills that traverse the landscape, I see rocks that were deposited on the sea floor over tens of millions of years and that were then compressed, folded and faulted, and uplifted to form highland regions.

All of the regional geological surveys that I have read describe the rocks that form the hills in terms of long-period deposition in different sedimentary environments followed by folding, faulting and uplift. Have you ever read a regional geological survey that described the rocks in terms of a universal flood that lasted for only a year?

 

[Astrophile]

I disagree eg: In a class of Astro physics if a student asked the teacher how did the universe begin would it be wrong for the teacher to say it all started with a singularity that may or may not be kicked off by God. As we all know the big bang has quite a bit of conjecture about it and can never be proven yet some teachers like to make a solid case for the big bang theory.

In my opinion it would be wrong for the teacher to say that. It would be reasonable for him or her to say that we don't know how the universe began, or that much of big bang theory is conjectural, but not that the initial singularity (if it ever existed) was 'kicked off by God.' 'We don't know, therefore God did it,' is not a valid argument. Also, using gaps in our knowledge as evidence for a God is an unwise strategy; if cosmologists ever work out a complete theory of the origin of the universe, God, as the kicker-off of the initial singularity, will become unnecessary.

I say let's include God in all topics until proven false not wait till proven true. After all, there are many lines of science that are discussed in a class that are not fully understood.

Would you say that we should include aliens from other planetary systems in all topics until they are proven false? Would you say, for example, that we should include the possibility that aliens built Stonehenge and the pyramids of Egypt, or that aliens killed the dinosaurs, until this hypothesis is disproved?

 

[Astrophile]

I have made my statement and I will stick with it. So tell me where did all of those big impact craters go and why are there still rocks as old as the earth still on the surface I am the one that asked the question and you expect me to answer my own question you can do better than that can't you but if I have you stumped I will have to explain it to you.

There are no rocks as old as the Earth still on the surface. In fact, there are hardly any rocks at the Earth's surface that are as old as the lunar maria and the oldest lunar craters. Rocks of this age, together with the traces of impact craters, have been destroyed by later metamorphism and erosion.

Also, the oldest rocks that are now exposed at the Earth's surface were formed kilometres deep in the Earth's crust. They have been exposed by the erosion of the overlying rocks, and it is these overlying rocks that would have preserved the traces of impact craters.

 

[Astrophile]

Thank you now you're asking the right questions. You seemed quite sharp at reviewing my past posts and questioning all that you could find but you seem to have missed one of my posts that made it clear that I believe the bible in a literal sense. You see I believe the earth is 6000 years old not 4.5 billion and I don't believe the earth was ever peppered by large asteroids or comets. It is you that believes in that not me I was provoking a response for creation v evolution now if you have no interest or knowledge of either then there is nothing to debate with you or can you hold up your end of whatever you do believe in.

All the evidence is against you. Radiometric dating of meteorites and lunar rocks has yielded ages up to 4560 million years, and there are many large terrestrial impact structures, such as Vredefort, Sudbury, Manicouagan, Popigai, Puchezh-Katunki, Manicouagan, Morokweng, Acraman, Yarrabubba, and Araguainha.

 

[Walk together]

All the evidence is against you. Radiometric dating of meteorites and lunar rocks has yielded ages up to 4560 million years, and there are many large terrestrial impact structures, such as Vredefort, Sudbury, Manicouagan, Popigai, Puchezh-Katunki, Manicouagan, Morokweng, Acraman, Yarrabubba, and Araguainha.

Well I don't know if you have noticed but the Moon has craters that are 1000+ kilometers in diameter and they are the most recent impacts that we see strange how the moon can be struck by so many of the largest asteroids in such a short period of time and the earth left out of that equation.

 

[Bradskii]

Well I don't know if you have noticed but the Moon has craters that are 1000+ kilometers in diameter and they are the most recent impacts that we see strange how the moon can be struck by so many of the largest asteroids in such a short period of time and the earth left out of that equation.

I guess you didn't take the time to look up the answer to that.

 

[Walk together]

I guess you didn't take the time to look up the answer to that.

Now that you have explained the question so thoroughly I can understand now.

 

[Bradskii]

Now that you have explained the question so thoroughly I can understand now.

If your Google is not working...I could help. Let me know. Otherwise copy and paste 'why does the moon have more craters that the earth' into your search engine.

 

[Walk together]

If your Google is not working...I could help. Let me know. Otherwise copy and paste 'why does the moon have more craters that the earth' into your search engine.

That wasn't the question, my question was why are there so many large craters on the moon, and why are the largest craters the youngest ones?

 

[Bradskii]

That wasn't the question, my question was why are there so many large craters on the moon, and why are the largest craters the youngest ones?

Try pasting 'why are there so many large craters on the moon, and why are the largest craters the youngest ones?' into Google.

Let me know if you need further help.

 

[Walk together]

Try pasting 'why are there so many large craters on the moon, and why are the largest craters the youngest ones?' into Google.

Let me know if you need further help.

Yes tried that and all I get is nonsensical scientific nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes tried that and all I get is nonsensical scientific nonsense.

Then I can't help you. But you should have tried that first.

 

[Walk together]

Then I can't help you. But you should have tried that first.

I already know the truth it's just that many others are still stuck on the scientific nonsense. So that's full circle all part of atheists being atheists.

 

[Bradskii]

I already know the truth...

Then it was something of waste of your time and mine in asking the question.

 

[Walk together]

Then it was something of waste of your time and mine in asking the question.

You picked up on the question that I put to someone else in reply 170 so I was not wasting anyone's time I was asking if he had noticed the fact that I already know. I have no need to research what I have to share.