Fossils on mountains and the hydroplate theory

[Mikecpking]

BBC documentary on the geological history of India. Hopefully will answer the OP

 

[PeterDona]

The magic problem. For the hydroplate theory to work it requires God to brush aside all fundamental physical laws which defeats the purpose of hydroplate theory to begin with. If your flood model requires magic, why try to make it look scientific? Just go full magic.

I did not yet study the hydroplate theory, but i can not believe in a theory that does not make sense within the common boundaries of physical laws. In genesis, the only recorded miracles regarding the flood is, that there came 2 of each animal, and that God himself closed the ark when all were in. I may of course be mistaken, but if God did other things along the way, would not Noa notice. Noa must have been a smart guy to be able to construct that ark.

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not yet study the hydroplate theory, but i can not believe in a theory that does not make sense within the common boundaries of physical laws.

Can you name one creationist "theory" that does not require a violation of known physical laws, or God making fake evidence?

In genesis, the only recorded miracles regarding the flood is, that there came 2 of each animal, and that God himself closed the ark when all were in. I may of course be mistaken, but if God did other things along the way, would not Noa notice. Noa must have been a smart guy to be able to construct that ark.

As discussed above, God would have to magically remove the heat produced by the escaping water, remove the heat caused by the accelerated decay that creationists have proposed, he would have to make fake starlight and a fake history for distant galaxies . . . and so forth. At some point, it is worth asking why you would ever think that creationism had a scientific foundation when the entire thing requires a rejection of almost every known scientific theory?

 

[PeterDona]

BBC documentary on the geological history of India. Hopefully will answer the OP

which minutes? I tried to browse through it, didnt find ....

 

[PeterDona]

Can you name one creationist "theory" that does not require a violation of known physical laws, or God making fake evidence?

Within my own field, genetics and molecular biology, creationism makes a lot of sense. So much so, that I find evolutionism weak. A few evidences like pseudogenes, and maybe those ERVs that i did not yet look into, are on evolutionist side I believe, but then evolutionism on the other hand has massive problems with the origin of life, irreducible complexity, the whole molecular mechanism of evolution, and so on.

As discussed above, God would have to magically remove the heat produced by the escaping water, remove the heat caused by the accelerated decay that creationists have proposed, he would have to make fake starlight and a fake history for distant galaxies . . . and so forth. At some point, it is worth asking why you would ever think that creationism had a scientific foundation when the entire thing requires a rejection of almost every known scientific theory?

Well, in this thread we just discussed a bad theory that asteroids have double spin or something, on the evolutionist side. So ... you should be aware that scientific weakness is on both sides. Should not take away from what actually does hold water.

I get the impression, from Rick, that within oceanography, the evidence points toward old earth. But as you may understand, it is certainly not a one-sided image, if you put all the sciences together.

 

[Loudmouth]

Within my own field, genetics and molecular biology, creationism makes a lot of sense.

How do you explain the matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology?

What mechanisms is creationism proposing? What evidence is there for these mechanisms? Is it just magic?

A few evidences like pseudogenes, and maybe those ERVs that i did not yet look into, are on evolutionist side I believe,

What DNA evidence is on the side of creationism?

but then evolutionism on the other hand has massive problems with the origin of life,

No more so than a DNA paternity test has problems with the origin of life.

irreducible complexity,

How is that a problem?

the whole molecular mechanism of evolution, and so on.

We already know the molecular mechanisms. Why is this a problem?

Well, in this thread we just discussed a bad theory that asteroids have double spin or something, on the evolutionist side. So ... you should be aware that scientific weakness is on both sides. Should not take away from what actually does hold water.

What does that have to do with anything?

I am still wondering. Can you name a single creationist "theory" that doesn't require a violation of known physical laws?

I get the impression, from Rick, that within oceanography, the evidence points toward old earth. But as you may understand, it is certainly not a one-sided image, if you put all the sciences together.

I understand no such thing. All of the science is on the side of an old Earth.

 

[RickG]

I get the impression, from Rick, that within oceanography, the evidence points toward old earth. But as you may understand, it is certainly not a one-sided image, if you put all the sciences together.

All the physical sciences points toward an old earth.

 

[PeterDona]

How do you explain the matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology?

What mechanisms is creationism proposing? What evidence is there for these mechanisms? Is it just magic?



What DNA evidence is on the side of creationism?



No more so than a DNA paternity test has problems with the origin of life.



How is that a problem?



We already know the molecular mechanisms. Why is this a problem?



What does that have to do with anything?

I am still wondering. Can you name a single creationist "theory" that doesn't require a violation of known physical laws?



I understand no such thing. All of the science is on the side of an old Earth.

I was providing an overview. I cannot go into all the details. This is a thread on how fossils came on the top of mount everest. You made the statement: Can you name one creationist "theory" that does not require a violation of known physical laws, or God making fake evidence? I answered your contention, or at least I think i did. I am not a native english speaker, so I may not percieve underlying ironic tone, if such was in your question.

 

[PeterDona]

All the physical sciences points toward an old earth.

I do not want to go off track, but, no I do not agree. Not all results and investigations point towards an old earth.

 

[RickG]

This is a thread on how fossils came on the top of mount everest.

The Indian Plate colliding with Asia during the Cenozoic 40-50 ka.

 

[RickG]

I do not want to go off track, but, no I do not agree. Not all results and investigations point towards an old earth.

I would be interested in one you think doesn't point toward an old earth.

 

[PeterDona]

How do you explain the matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology?

Just one short answer here. The linnaean phylogeny and the DNA phylogeny did not match each other. It was decided that DNA phylogeny would be more authoritative. Some organisms changed into another family, and in general trees were rearranged.

 

[PeterDona]

I would be interested in one you think doesn't point toward an old earth.

Only one? The existence of the magnetic field. I know about the generator theory, but I can not take it seriously. A magnetic field has also been found on planet Mercury, which rotates too slowly to even warrant any generator effect (were it ever so). Such evidence points towards a young earth and a young solar system.

 

[The Cadet]

Only one? The existence of the magnetic field. I know about the generator theory, but I can not take it seriously. A magnetic field has also been found on planet Mercury, which rotates too slowly to even warrant any generator effect (were it ever so). Such evidence points towards a young earth and a young solar system.

Maybe something that isn't debunked on the index of creationist claims?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

 

[Subduction Zone]

Uhm, but the effect should only give many years in case of a small objects. So you imply that there is a lot of spring forces / vibrations going on in the asteroids?
Energy only produces heat if there is a change of the energy form. E.g. if there is a friction. But asteroids are in empty space, so no friction.

Again watch the videos, read the papers. The friction is internal friction as the asteroid changes shape slightly because it has a tumbling rotation.

Same comment as for Ricks reply. However, they may lose energy by way of heat radiation because they were intially warm. But I did not find a discussion of such a phenomenon.

It was there, you plainly did not understand it.

 

[RickG]

Only one? The existence of the magnetic field. I know about the generator theory, but I can not take it seriously. A magnetic field has also been found on planet Mercury, which rotates too slowly to even warrant any generator effect (were it ever so). Such evidence points towards a young earth and a young solar system.

Are you suggesting that there is no magnet field?

 

[SkyWriting]

Pumice?

Yes.

You don't need me to tell you about 15 mile wide floating rock islands.

After the explosion of Krakatoa, rafts of pumice drifted through the Pacific Ocean for up to 20 years, with tree trunks floating among them.[5] In fact, pumice rafts disperse and support several marine species.[6] In 1979, 1984 and 2006, underwater volcanic eruptions near Tonga created large pumice rafts, some as large as 30 km (over 15 miles) that floated hundreds of kilometres to Fiji.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes.

Here is a sidetrack related to the dispersions of animals after the Flood:

After the explosion of Krakatoa, rafts of pumice drifted through the Pacific Ocean for up to 20 years, with tree trunks floating among them.[5] In fact, pumice rafts disperse and support several marine species.[6] In 1979, 1984 and 2006, underwater volcanic eruptions near Tonga created large pumice rafts, some as large as 30 km (over 15 miles) that floated hundreds of kilometres to Fiji.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice

Since you brought up volcanoes:

 

[SkyWriting]

Since you brought up volcanoes:

Has this video been through a peer review process?
If not, then it's just another comic book.

 

[SkyWriting]

Only one? The existence of the magnetic field. I know about the generator theory, but I can not take it seriously. A magnetic field has also been found on planet Mercury, which rotates too slowly to even warrant any generator effect (were it ever so). Such evidence points towards a young earth and a young solar system.

But nothing in scripture suggests a young earth.
As long as we're trusting in suggestions.
That was some buddy of the Pope who published that stuff.