I have been converted, I no longer buy evolution

[Hespera]

I wasn't even aware that evolution was for sale.

It isnt. thats a figure of speech!


of course, creationism is.
note the for-profit purveyors of same.

 

[marktheblake]

Avalible- 1.4 billion cubic kilometers
Needed (To cover the ENTIRE surface)- 5 quadrillion cubic kilometers
Missing- 4.9999986 quadrillion cubic kilometers.

Great work and a credit to your fiance. It looks like you are never going to get away with sneaking $50 out of the bank account - ever.

The only thing is, that the Creationist has already dealt with this issue long ago, at the time of the flood, Everest wasn't there, and the Oceans were not as deep. Perhaps another calculation could be made to see if it works out?

To say a world wide flood reached 6 miles above the current sea level is delusional

I am often told that the Creationist is delusional but none of them will say that the flood topped Mt Everest at its current height.

 

[Hespera]

markthe! tell us you dont really think that mt Everest is only a few thousand years old.

 

[teddyv]

markthe! tell us you dont really think that mt Everest is only a few thousand years old.

Of course. When the "fountains of the deep broke up" that was when the mountains formed. Nevermind doing all that probably have melted the earth.

 

[Washington]

The only thing is, that the Creationist has already dealt with this issue long ago, at the time of the flood, Everest wasn't there, and the Oceans were not as deep. Perhaps another calculation could be made to see if it works out?

And Mt. Ararat wasn't 16,946 ft. tall, but 169.46 ft feet tall. We get the picture.

 

[Hespera]

And Mt. Ararat wasn't 16,946 ft. tall, but 169.46 ft feet tall. We get the picture.

Be nice now and give him a chance to explain. Surely he is joking, or means like Everest was a few inches or feet shorter...? They say it is getting taller by some small amount..

 

[marktheblake]

markthe! tell us you dont really think that mt Everest is only a few thousand years old.

Not sure what the age of Everest has to do with the point. It is a dead argument that a flood could top Mt Everest, cos it cant. They proved that in Waterworld, (big plot hole in that movie)

Of course. When the "fountains of the deep broke up" that was when the mountains formed

Haven't heard that one before, good thinking though.

And Mt. Ararat wasn't 16,946 ft. tall, but 169.46 ft feet tall. We get the picture.

Genesis doesn't mention how high the mountains of Ararat are, so I dont know where you are getting your information from.

 

[Hespera]

markthe! the question is, was everest a little mountain that could be covered by water THEN, and a big mountain that cant be covered, NOW!. How many thousand ft would you suppose the mountains might have grown since the 'flood'?

 

[Washington]

Genesis doesn't mention how high the mountains of Ararat are, so I dont know where you are getting your information from.

Sarcasm!

 

[marktheblake]

How many thousand ft would you suppose the mountains might have grown since the 'flood'?

probably the same amount you think its grown since that clam shell found it way up there

 

[Steezie]

The only thing is, that the Creationist has already dealt with this issue long ago, at the time of the flood, Everest wasn't there, and the Oceans were not as deep. Perhaps another calculation could be made to see if it works out?

For starters, where on EARTH did you figure that Everest somehow wasn't there?

Also, how do you figure the oceans just magically werent as deep as they are now?

 

[atomweaver]

Great work and a credit to your fiance. It looks like you are never going to get away with sneaking $50 out of the bank account - ever.

The only thing is, that the Creationist has already dealt with this issue long ago, at the time of the flood, Everest wasn't there,

Serious Q; since when did "wishing Everest away" ever equate with "dealing with the issue"?

And less erious Q; do you click your heels together three times, before you wish a mountain away?

 

[marktheblake]

For starters, where on EARTH did you figure that Everest somehow wasn't there?

was Everest always there?

Also, how do you figure the oceans just magically werent as deep as they are now?

probably from watching too much Carl Sagan when i was a kid.

As i said already, the creationists have dealt with these issues long ago.

 

[Hespera]

was Everest always there?



probably from watching too much Carl Sagan when i was a kid.

As i said already, the creationists have dealt with these issues long ago.

"Dealt with"? Not to go snarko on you, but really that is "dealt with" only in their own minds.

Of course Everest, or any other mountain was not always there.

But we sure know that a mess in the kitchen that took months to prepare... layers of stuck down food, mold etc, cant be done in a day. Or a week. TRY to tell your mom it happened during a moment's inattention!
You can try claiming it was a miracle, or magic... go ahead!

No serious minded person who spent time looking at the evidence or what is actually there could conclude that all the geological features of the earth could be done in a few thousand years, or a few million. Certainly the ones who look are the hardest are geologists and none of THEM think its all the work of a few thousand yeras.

Leaves what look like few possibilities.

1. All the geologists are just incompetent
2. They are all part of a conspiracy
3. They have all been fooled by satan
4. The have all been fooled by "embedded age"
5. The biblical account is not accurate

Did I leave one out? Which do YOU think it is? And why, if I may ask.

 

[Andrew Sneddon]

Does it not say in that the bible that we are from ashes to ashes, dust to dust? Could someone point me in the right direction for the passage cause it sounds like it is sujesting that evolution is a valid possible theory on how the world came about but to be honest both evolution and creation need a certain amount of personal faith to beileave in them. I don't think either is out of the question. You need faith in science that it has discovered every possible outcome to every experiment done, ever and with creation you need to have faith that Genisis was meant to be read litterally (I'm not going to go into how you are suposed to know what bits of the bible are literal and metaphorcal and what ever else you can analyise a text but cause it is answered on another site and is a completely different question). Personally I beleive in evolution as a theory but when people start saying that there are bones on creatures we see today that sujest that they lived in the water I think it is getting closer to speculation (requireing faith) and further away from science.

 

[marktheblake]

"Dealt with"? Not to go snarko on you, but really that is "dealt with" only in their own minds.

I dont mind you going snarko, cos i dont even know what the word is. I expect you are going to tell me know, then i will probably feel hurt

I concur, however the issue I raised is that if the gentleman who raised this 'volume of water' problem wants to catch the creationist out, he is going to have to come up with something that the creationist has yet to deal with in his own mind and made it known.

You can try claiming it was a miracle, or magic... go ahead!

I would never have considered that Noah's flood was a miracle.

And i have seen how much damage a flood did to a section of my golf course in one night. One hole, totally destroyed. The mind boggles what water could do on an unimaginable scale.

Certainly the ones who look are the hardest are geologists and none of THEM think its all the work of a few thousand yeras.

Plenty of Geologists listed here,
Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation
plus I personally know a retired one not listed there (used to be on the AIG show a few times, and had the pleasure of an interview with Dawkins) who now lives in jungle in Thailand caring for about 20 orphans.

Did I leave one out? Which do YOU think it is? And why, if I may ask.

I haven't really considered it, as it doesn't bother me that much. But the perspective of your question changes a bit considering that several Geologists do not agree with the b/millions of years time scales. Perhaps we should consider why some do and some dont, in light of the fact that Geologist do indeed work very hard studing the rocks

 

[Sri]

I believe the earth is around 3.6 billion years old, however, I do not believe in evolution. Evolution maybe helpful in the sense that it files and keeps things organized in the classification or categories of species, but I do not believe entirely in evolution. Microevolution is something I come to grips with, but macroevolution does not take a place in my world view entirely.

 

[Hespera]

I believe the earth is around 3.6 billion years old, however, I do not believe in evolution. Evolution maybe helpful in the sense that it files and keeps things organized in the classification or categories of species, but I do not believe entirely in evolution. Microevolution is something I come to grips with, but macroevolution does not take a place in my world view entirely.

You do know of course that throughout earth history the fossils that are found show a sequence from simpler to more complex organisms, with both plants and animals. How would you account for that?

 

[Sri]

I don't disagree with that.

 

[Hespera]

I dont mind you going snarko, cos i dont even know what the word is. I expect you are going to tell me know, then i will probably feel hurt

I concur, however the issue I raised is that if the gentleman who raised this 'volume of water' problem wants to catch the creationist out, he is going to have to come up with something that the creationist has yet to deal with in his own mind and made it known.



I would never have considered that Noah's flood was a miracle.

And i have seen how much damage a flood did to a section of my golf course in one night. One hole, totally destroyed. The mind boggles what water could do on an unimaginable scale.



Plenty of Geologists listed here,
Scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation
plus I personally know a retired one not listed there (used to be on the AIG show a few times, and had the pleasure of an interview with Dawkins) who now lives in jungle in Thailand caring for about 20 orphans.




I haven't really considered it, as it doesn't bother me that much. But the perspective of your question changes a bit considering that several Geologists do not agree with the b/millions of years time scales. Perhaps we should consider why some do and some dont, in light of the fact that Geologist do indeed work very hard studing the rocks

Devil is in them details, regarding your list.

The great 90%+ majority of those are people like engineers and psychologists whose opinion about the validity of geologists' work is of no value or significance whatever.

As for the few geologist sorts that are listed, there are some details that would have to be clarified.

-are they really geologists? I have a mail order dr. of divinity degree, Hovind I guess has a similar degree.

-what is their actual position on "creation"? does it include belief that there was a 6 day creation, and a noah flood as described?

-what is the basis for those beliefs?

-do they have actual data or do they just belief for ideological reasons?

-what reputation do they have in the scientific community

-do they have peer reviewed research papers that support ideas indicateing a young earth / actual flood?

Just as a general concept here, IF someone came up with data that would falsiy evolution, demonstrate that there was a world wide flood, that would be sensational in the extreme and we have not heard of any such thing happening.

As to flood on a golf course, yes, a lot of unconsolidated sediment can be eroded quite rapidly.

There is a beautiful canyon, deep and narrow, that I have been to in Taiwan, cut through marble rock... very resistant stuff. The elaborate sculpting of the rock is just not consistent with what would result from a massive flood! Neither is any other geological feature you can find anywhere consistent with a world wide flood.

Its easy to draw quick conclusions from a casual observation like of a gully.
Its another to put in the long long hours of actual research.

The grand canyon is a popular fav. with flood advocates. But there is no way to make it work as having been made that way unless you introduce magic.


Finally... I would love to consider why some do some dont agree with the earth's age as currently presented. Why dont they?