DINOSAURS! Noah's Flood & other awesome questions.

[pat34lee]

How so? How is something we live on a myth?

Who lives on a column? Not me.

 

[RickG]

Who lives on a column? Not me.

Then what is under your feet? Why do you say it does not exist?

 

[Colter]

Where?

You can research on the net or go to a library and study the writings of higher criticism. You can also read the OT and extrapolate for yourself the inconsistencies of the stories as well as apply a little common sense. Most scholars date the current Bible books to the Babylonian captivity period.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory are very well evidenced and in fact are among the best evidenced theories in all of science.

Well, I have watched the latest video from creationastronomy.com, entitled "Our Created Universe," which goes into great detail about the so-called Big Bang theory and all I can say is if that is one of "the best evidenced theories in all of science" then science is in a lot of trouble. I've also watched the other two videos in the series and they also go into great detail about the miriad of problems in trying to explain the existence of the universe using only non-supernatural explanations. It amuses me to think God may have deliberately created the universe and life in this way to thwart the futile attempts of humans in trying to explain the existence of reality without his divine power and knowledge.

 

[Commander]

The theory of evolution?
Theory-a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Science-the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Fact-a thing that is indisputably the case.

Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Where scientist at the beginning? So, they could intelligently and systematically study through observation the age of the earth, and did they repeat this, and it showed the same each time? No, according to evolutionary scientist the age of the universe has went from 12(something) billion(when I was in college in 1984), to over 15 billion in 1989, to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe. The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years.
Fact is a thing that is indisputable. Evolution is not a fact, but fallacy of those who want you to believe in their lie(for they also have been lied to). The evidence of the theory of evolution is not true or valid.

 

[RickG]

Where scientist at the beginning? So, they could intelligently and systematically study through observation the age of the earth, and did they repeat this, and it showed the same each time? No, according to evolutionary scientist the age of the universe has went from 12(something) billion(when I was in college in 1984), to over 15 billion in 1989, to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe. The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years.

I think you are confusing the age of the universe with the age of the earth. There are two important facts you have wrong.

One, evolutionary scientists do not engage in dating the earth, that is done by geochemists and geochronologists.

Two, the age of the earth has never been estimated anywhere near 12 to 15 billion years old. NEVER. One of my old textbooks, "Earth History & Plate Tectonics" (Carl K. Seyfert & Leslie A. Sirkin, 1973, pg. 143) lists the age of the earth as it states, "about 4.6 billion years old".

 

[Commander]

I think you are confusing the age of the universe with the age of the earth. There are two important facts you have wrong.

One, evolutionary scientists do not engage in dating the earth, that is done by geochemists and geochronologists.

Two, the age of the earth has never been estimated anywhere near 12 to 15 billion years old. NEVER. One of my old textbooks, "Earth History & Plate Tectonics" (Carl K. Seyfert & Leslie A. Sirkin, 1973, pg. 143) lists the age of the earth as it states, "about 4.6 billion years old".

"The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years."

You really don't understand do you. The ages of the earth/universe is this old today, that old yesterday, and younger tomorrow.
The numbers do not match! They are all over the place, up and down and to some scientist even sideways.

Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

[ElxDalto]

Gladly.

http://creation.com/the-lost-squadron

So, I read the article. Good read btw, but what are you saying with it?

 

[ElxDalto]

Show me this original evidence and data that's thrown under the bus from a valid and reliable source.

There's a few articles here

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

 

[ElxDalto]

First, the geologic column is a myth.

Actually, I came to know it's not a myth. It definitely isn't valid proof of millions of years of erosion though. I believe it leans more towards the global flood, at least thats what the evidence shows.

 

[ElxDalto]

You can research on the net or go to a library and study the writings of higher criticism. You can also read the OT and extrapolate for yourself the inconsistencies of the stories as well as apply a little common sense. Most scholars date the current Bible books to the Babylonian captivity period.

Let me peek into your mind just a bit on some of your common sense. What and why on a few examples of the OT do you think are not what it clearly says?

 

[Commander]

Age & Size of the Universe Through the Years
Our estimate of the age and size of the Universe has changed during the past century.
1919-Age: Infinite. Size: 300,000 Light Years
1929-Age: 2 Billion Years. Size: 280 Million Light Years
1955-Age: 6 Billion Years. Size: 4 Billion Light Years
1965-Age: 10-25 Billion Years. Size: 25 Billion Light Years
1993-Age: 12-20 Billion Years. Size: 30 Billion Light Years
2006-Age: 13.7 Billion Years. Size: 94 Billion Light Years

http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html Notice this is from NASA.

"to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe."

 

[ElxDalto]

Age & Size of the Universe Through the Years
Our estimate of the age and size of the Universe has changed during the past century.
1919-Age: Infinite. Size: 300,000 Light Years
1929-Age: 2 Billion Years. Size: 280 Million Light Years
1955-Age: 6 Billion Years. Size: 4 Billion Light Years
1965-Age: 10-25 Billion Years. Size: 25 Billion Light Years
1993-Age: 12-20 Billion Years. Size: 30 Billion Light Years
2006-Age: 13.7 Billion Years. Size: 94 Billion Light Years

http://cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov/teachers/guide/age_size.html Notice this is from NASA.

"to today(2016) where it is at 13.82 billion for the universe."

BOY, tempus fugit in just a mere century.

 

[RickG]

"The earth when I was in college was at 2.(something) billion to today it is at 4.53 billion years."

Commander, again, you are mistaken. I just quoted you a source above a number of years prior to your college days where it was 4.6 Ga. Please don't go the D-K route here.

 

[Speedwell]

How about flaming? Seems there is a rule regarding that.

As for the challenge, use your own terms if you fail to understand
mine. How can evolution change a dog into something not a dog,
and how long would it take?

First, evolutionary biologists don't see speciation as a big deal. Species aren't pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. When part of a population is subjected to different selection criteria than the rest, it will evolve to meet those new criteria. If it evolves enough that the two groups are no longer interfertile, a new species is said to have formed. But the process is slow and partial interfertility will last a long time. There is no "hard line" between species. That is why the determination of species is sometimes difficult and can be controversial.

How does it happen? No offspring is exactly the same as its parent. In each generation the population will present a range of variants to the environment for selection. For a given heritable trait, the length of a limb, say, the distribution of variation will be random (think "bell curve"). Most variation will be near the average, with outriders at either extreme, like a bell curve. If selection criteria are stable, the central group will survive to reproduce, the outriders not so much. However, if the selection criteria change, there will be already in the population at least a few individuals on the edges to take advantage of the situation. As they reproduce more successfully, generation by generation, than the individuals nearer the original central tendency and on the other side of it, the central tendency will shift in that direction, producing more outriders to take advantage of further shifts in selection criteria.

And so on. How long? Hard to say. It depends on the size and diversity of the gene pool and the degree of selection pressure. Maintaining the diversity of the gene pool is key to to successful evolution; a population of clones would generate little or no variation and would not be able to evolve. Gene pool diversity is also reduced by the normal action of natural selection. That's where mutations and other contributors of diversity come in.

 

[Commander]

BOY, tempus fugit in just a mere century.

Yes, and you should see the NASA report on Global warming!-LOL
For another good laugh: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/1970s-ice-age-scare/

 

[Commander]

Commander, again, you are mistaken. I just quoted you a source above a number of years prior to your college days where it was 4.6 Ga. Please don't go the D-K route here.

You do understand that (according to evolutionary scientist the universe was here first and then the earth developed, right)? So, according to them there would be two different ages:
one for the universe(13 billion)
and one for the earth(4.53 billion).

 

[SnowyMacie]

There's a few articles here

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

Answers in Genesis is neither a valid nor reliable source. I was thinking more of a research article, but I'll go on and post my rebuttle anyway. I'm not an expert in geology, so I'm working with what I know.

1) "Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents"
This is because the plates of Earth have shifted overtime and where there may be mountains or a desert now was at one time an ocean. Continents haven't necessarily "sunk" as the article has suggested, but have merely moved around, occasionally separating and colliding.

2) Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
There have been numerous mass extinctions throughout the history of the Earth. These fossils are found at layers that coincide with said extinctions, not just a few thousand years ago.

3) Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and 4 "Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances"
Pangia, shifting continents, and also there's really not that many different kinds of rocks.

4) Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
It's called being crushed by other layers of rock, and not being exposed to the environment. Weathering only occurs on the surface where it exposed to the factors that contribute to eroding. Also, the layers are not as obviously defined as the article seems to be intending, and if you ever actually looked at the grand canyons, it's edges are rough from because exposed to the elements.

5) "Evidence 6: Rapid or no erosion between strata"
Again, that rock was the bottom of the ocean before the plates of the Earth shifted.

 

[SnowyMacie]

You do understand that (according to evolutionary scientist the universe was here first and then the earth developed, right)? So, according to them there would be two different ages:
one for the universe(13 billion)
and one for the earth(4.53 billion).

Yeah, what's your point?

 

[ElxDalto]

Answers in Genesis is neither a valid nor reliable source. I was thinking more of a research article, but I'll go on and post my rebuttle anyway. I'm not an expert in geology, so I'm working with what I know.

1) "Evidence 1: Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents"
This is because the plates of Earth have shifted overtime and where there may be mountains or a desert now was at one time an ocean. Continents haven't necessarily "sunk" as the article has suggested, but have merely moved around, occasionally separating and colliding.

2) Evidence 2: Rapid burial of plants and animals
There have been numerous mass extinctions throughout the history of the Earth. These fossils are found at layers that coincide with said extinctions, not just a few thousand years ago.

3) Evidence 3: Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas and 4 "Evidence 4: Sediment transported long distances"
Pangia, shifting continents, and also there's really not that many different kinds of rocks.

4) Evidence 5: Rapid or no erosion between strata
It's called being crushed by other layers of rock, and not being exposed to the environment. Weathering only occurs on the surface where it exposed to the factors that contribute to eroding. Also, the layers are not as obviously defined as the article seems to be intending, and if you ever actually looked at the grand canyons, it's edges are rough from because exposed to the elements.

5) "Evidence 6: Rapid or no erosion between strata"
Again, that rock was the bottom of the ocean before the plates of the Earth shifted.

Dude, just like I said, throwing the evidence under the bus. Don't even think about the possibility of it being correct, just throw it out because it doesn't fit the old earth view. Thanks for proving my point.