Dinosaurs would still be here.

[Eternally Grateful]

Who? Where can I read their results?

you can read Andrew spellings views. he has a few books.

one of them is earth catastrophic past.

You can also watch a documentary called I believe "Is genesis history" there are two parts. one is the creation of mountains.

in these documentaries, multiple scientists are used to discuss things, The grand canyon is one of them

 

[AV1611VET]

How does the saying go? “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. If geologist keep looking for something that doesn't exist, at which point does it become insanity to keep doing so?

Ask Thomas Edison.

Or the Wright brothers.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Because one would think if it could be scientifically supported it would be a boon to ministry.

Not if the industry is for the most part. anti God.

Leaving things as they are just maintains the status quo, where science moved on from the global flood 200 years ago and the only people who still cling to it are mostly from specific American Protestant denominations. IOW, it'll remain a sectarian religious belief.


Again, that's for the handful of people who still believe it literally to do. Everyone else moved on centuries ago.

they wanted to all line up with the new theory which was started around the time darwin came out with his theory. based on another scientists view that the earth was millions of years old.

it does not mean it is proven however. no one knows how old the earth is. No one was there in the beginning.. so it is all a guess..

 

[AV1611VET]

That makes him a college graduate, not a scientist.

Fair enough.

I prefer the word "academian" to "scientist" anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

most people stop looking because they are afraid to find the answers they find may be against what they believe

No argument there.

But I will admit that, in the case of the Flood, I don't believe there is any physical evidence here on earth.

It has to be taken on Faith, or not at all.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Snelling isn't a scientist. He works for a Christian apologetics ministry that has all its employees agree to work under a framework that is the opposite of science.

lol.

He has a doctorate. in the science of geology

you just hurt your own cause.. I can't trust you when you make claims like this. it just shows your bias.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That makes him a college graduate, not a scientist. If after I got my degrees in biology I went and worked as a truck driver, I can't say I'm a scientist.

Snelling works for AiG, which is a self-described apologetics ministry (not a scientific institution) that has all their employees agree to work under an anti-scientific framework. Therefore he's not a scientist.

so you got a college degree and became a truck driver

he got a college degree, then a masters degree, then a doctorate. and has worked in the field since then

but he is n9t a scientist.

It does not matter who he works for. He works in the field of geology. You may not agree with him, but to say he is not a scientist again, just shows your bias.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

How does the saying go? “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. If geologist keep looking for something that doesn't exist, at which point does it become insanity to keep doing so?

well many looked, found evidence, and keep looking, and keep finding evidence.

others say they can not find any evidence. but if they can not, why are others finding it?

is it bias?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

No argument there.

But I will admit that, in the case of the Flood, I don't believe there is any physical evidence here on earth.

It has to be taken on Faith, or not at all.

I have seen tons of evidence.

It made my faith even greater.

 

[Aaron112]

well many looked, found evidence, and keep looking, and keep finding evidence.

others say they can not find any evidence. but if they can not, why are others finding it?

is it bias?

M O N E Y
ha S A T A N
P R I D E
deception willfully and unwittingly too

 

[Aaron112]

No argument there.
But I will admit that, in the case of the Flood, I don't believe there is any physical evidence here on earth
It has to be taken on Faith, or not at all.

Not for disclosure among the unbelievers and those who mock God and His Word,
do you want to know/see/ the physical evidence?
(Only available to those with simple Faith in Jesus, belonging to Jesus, abiding in Jesus.)

 

[AV1611VET]

lol.

He has a doctorate. in the science of geology

you just hurt your own cause.. I can't trust you when you make claims like this. it just shows your bias.

It's always science if it works.

Science put men on the moon.

Science gave us the artificial heart.

Science built a better mousetrap.

BUT ... let one thing go wrong ... and ...

The government did it.

Big pharmacy did it.

Engineers did it.

Big management did it.

 

[dlamberth]

sorry, I do not get my science data from wikepedia.

However, I see they are using radiometric data to determine the age.

I would not trust this to determine how old something was.

I knew you were headed in that direction.
Geologist who actually understand radiometric data do trust it. It's proven itself over and over.

But what about the other examples I gave, like the over 300 different lava flows of the Columbia River Basalts. Or the burn track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot? Or the Ice Age? Or the zillion of other examples around the globe that all point towards a very old Earth?

If your interested, here's a short 15 min video I've posted previously. The video looks at the actual lab work that goes into dating rocks using Led Zircon Isotopes.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have seen tons of evidence.

It made my faith even greater.

Fair enough!

 

[AV1611VET]

do you want to know/see/ the physical evidence?

Shoot!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

again, science used to say the grand canyon was formed by a river, that is mostly rejected today as further evience shows that would not even be possible (the river would have to run uphill)

I'm sorry, what? That is definitely not true nor factual at all.

 

[BCP1928]

sorry, I do not get my science data from wikepedia.

Nobody does. That's why all Wikipedia articles have references, so you can follow up and see where they got the information from.

However, I see they are using radiometric data to determine the age.

I would not trust this to determine how old something was.

Do you have a better method?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I knew you were headed in that direction.
Geologist who actually understand radiometric data do trust it. It's proven itself over and over.

actually it is not proven, and it is questioned by many people.

Again, No one was there 50 million years ago (if the earth was even here)

radiometric data demands everything is the same 50 million years ago as it is today. if it is not. then the data can not be trusted.

I can go on and on and on.

But what about the other examples I gave, like the over 300 different lava flows of the Columbia River Basalts. Or the burn track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot? Or the Ice Age? Or the zillion of other examples around the globe that all point towards a very old Earth?

Ice age occurred after the flood.

300 different lava flows? and

If your interested, here's a short 15 min video I've posted previously. The video looks at the actual lab work that goes into dating rocks using Led Zircon Isotopes.

lol

I was not here 50 million years. ago. nor was anyone else. But I do have this

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

radiometric data demands all things have been the same since the beginning of creation.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I'm sorry, what? That is definitely not true nor factual at all.

I have seen the evidence. Believe what you want

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have seen the evidence. Believe what you want

I very much doubt you have, otherwise you would actually present it, for one thing.