Levels of EvC belief

[Brightmoon]

No. Hutton was wrong. He believed. He was not aware!

You have no idea what you’re talking about do you.
This is horizontal red sandstone above vertical greywacke . Hutton was aware of this geological formation because it proved his point . That the earth was old . The greywacke layers had to be moved from a horizontal position, then eroded flat . After that ,the red sandstone was layered over the greywacke. Both rock layers are sedimentary. So the greywacke had to have been moved from the horizontal ( by plate tectonics but Hutton wouldn’t have known about plate tectonics)

 

[Strathos]

View attachment 228561
You have no idea what you’re talking about do you.
This is horizontal red sandstone above vertical greywacke . Hutton was aware of this geological formation because it proved his point . That the earth was old . The greywacke layers had to be moved from a horizontal position, then eroded flat . After that ,the red sandstone was layered over the greywacke. Both rock layers are sedimentary. So the greywacke had to have been moved from the horizontal ( by plate tectonics but Hutton wouldn’t have known about plate tectonics)

Prepare to be met with either 'God did that on purpose to test our faith', or 'the laws of physics and reality were different before the flood so stuff like that could happen instantly'.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Maybe even the denial of counting - we can count by eye about ~55,000 layers in ice cores laid 1 per year.

 

[dad]

I do.

You do have a fable where nothing escaped earth then. OK. We'' add it to the pile.

 

[dad]

You have the probably deluded fantasies (comets are living things that evolved?) of a person that even other creationists distrust and have debunked.

No idea what you are talking about with the evolved living comet thing. Not sure why you offer craziness and pretend it is from me?

We have physical observations about comets. We have visited comets several times. We have gathered dust grains from a comet coma. We have landed a spacecraft on a comet! The body of physical evidence is that comets formed in the early solar system. They contain water, CO2 and methane ices. They contain dust grains that do not form on planets. They have orbits which makes it physically impossible for them to originate from the inner planets, e.g. ones that never get into the inner solar system.

Containing water and stuff in no way means something evolved in an imaginary early solar system. The orbits of comets do not help your fable either. Orbits are a feature of the present nature, and are affected/caused by forces and laws now in place. That tells us nothing about how it used to be. As for grains that do not form on planets...I assume you are talking from deep within your circular belief system....total fantasy.

We have real comets and the laws of physics. The estimated mass of all of the comets is greater than the mass of the Earth ! The thousands of known comets are a small fraction of the mass of the Earth at about 10^18 kg but the heat released in blasting water and rock from the surface of the Earth would possibly turn the surface into lava. However that is the fantasy you are supporting so you do the math.

OK. Here is the math...not all comets originated from earth. You see, a change in nature and laws might affect a lot of things out in space near us. But if they find life (traces) on planets, that was probably a result of some stuff from earth.

Comets are a small argument against a young Earth. Some have periods of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. YEC should have only short-period comets of < 10,000 years.

Nope. The directions comets ended up going cannot be back by same state past religion.

Note that the reservoir of Kuiper Belt objects as the source of some comets is getting close to a fact as we detect smaller and smaller Kuiper Belt objects.

So what? How they got there and when is way way way beyond the abilities of your religion.

 

[dad]

11 May 2018 dad: A "past religious dating" lie.
Radiometric dating is science not religion.

It s based on the belief that the past was the same in that there was still radioactive decay actually.

ETA: What James Hutton discovered over 200 years ago was not really dating. It was the realization that layers of sedimentary rock were laid down in cycles of deposition, uplifting, erosions and then drowning again. That needs enormous amounts of time. How long that time was took a lot more research to establish.

Nope. The different former nature allowed fast fast deposition.

 

[dad]

View attachment 228561
You have no idea what you’re talking about do you.
This is horizontal red sandstone above vertical greywacke . Hutton was aware of this geological formation because it proved his point . That the earth was old . The greywacke layers had to be moved from a horizontal position, then eroded flat . After that ,the red sandstone was layered over the greywacke. Both rock layers are sedimentary. So the greywacke had to have been moved from the horizontal ( by plate tectonics but Hutton wouldn’t have known about plate tectonics)

Nor would he have known about the rapid continental movement, and rapid pushing up of mountains, and etc etc. As I said, he was wrong as wrong can be.

 

[dad]

Maybe even the denial of counting - we can count by eye about ~55,000 layers in ice cores laid 1 per year.

Nope. Only now in this nature is it one per year. Your religion is showing.

 

[Strathos]

You do have a fable where nothing escaped earth then. OK. We'' add it to the pile.

Floods where water flies into space are undisputed facts, but floods where it doesn't are fables, gotcha.

 

[Astrophile]

So what? How they got there and when is way way way beyond the abilities of your religion.

And of yours as well. It was scientists, not clergymen or creationists, who predicted the existence of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For anyone who is 99% certain that evolution is true. Does that entail you are 1% certain its false?

"Of course I believe in evolution, I am only 1% certain its false..." sounds a bit odd.

 

[Brightmoon]

Scientists write with the certainty that they could be demonstrated to be wrong in the future because we don’t know everything. Even though I highly doubt it, evolution could be demonstrated to be mistaken by future research . But not by creation “science “ which is applied confirmation bias at best.

 

[Brightmoon]

Hydrogen and oxygen are two of the most common elements in the universe, of course we’d find water in space as vapor,liquid water, and ice but they didn’t come from a physically impossible global flood on the earth . Nor did this space water fall to earth in a global flood

 

[Brightmoon]

Rapid tectonic plates move about 6 inches per year . They aren’t going to move much faster than that .

 

[dad]

Floods where water flies into space are undisputed facts, but floods where it doesn't are fables, gotcha.

To have the flood era events become impossible you invoke a same state past that has absolutely no proof. You are in no position to question whether some great wind made waters on the planet recede in Noah's day, or whether founts of the deep erupted in some cases with great force...etc.

Science seems to think it can wave off all past reality with their baseless beliefs. Ha.

 

[dad]

And of yours as well.

Don't kid yourself nothing is beyond my religion! As high as the heavens are above earth, so high is my religion above science!

It was scientists, not clergymen or creationists, who predicted the existence of the Oort cloud and the Kuiper belt.

Is that where the boggy man and Jack in the beanstalk live?


--Having an area in space where many comets originate in NO way means what your strange fable making machine wants it to mean!

 

[Brightmoon]

What are you talking about Dad?

 

[Strathos]

To have the flood era events become impossible you invoke a same state past that has absolutely no proof. You are in no position to question whether some great wind made waters on the planet recede in Noah's day, or whether founts of the deep erupted in some cases with great force...etc.

Science seems to think it can wave off all past reality with their baseless beliefs. Ha.

There was definitely a flood, it just wasn't global.

 

[dad]

There was definitely a flood, it just wasn't global.

Like you would know.

 

[Strathos]

Like you would know.

I know with a reasonable but not absolute degree of certainty.