norse creationism

[Einstein]

I think you're all wrong. I think that I'm God. Have fun trying to prove me wrong. remember, I do not like to show off, so asking me to prove my powers is out of the question. Come on! Prove me wrong! Oh yeah, you can't, unless you consider the fact that there is no god. ...Scratch that, I am God.

 

[LittleNipper]

I think you're all wrong. I think that I'm God. Have fun trying to prove me wrong. remember, I do not like to show off, so asking me to prove my powers is out of the question. Come on! Prove me wrong! Oh yeah, you can't, unless you consider the fact that there is no god. ...Scratch that, I am God.

You cannot be GOD, because GOD knows-----GOD does not think so...

 

[Tomk80]

You cannot be GOD, because GOD knows-----GOD does not think so...

I'm currently assuming that this response isn't in any way meant to be taken seriously.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Little Nipper,

You claimed the mountains were much smaller before the flood. In addition to the geological absurdity of this claim it has the following problem which I brought up earlier.

"But don't you (YECs) also use those mountains to sort the fossil record either by ecological zoning or differential escapability? How do you sort fossils through thousands of feet of sediments by these mechanisms with only "high hills"?"

Do you have an answer?

IMO this is one of many illustrations of the way YECs will try to answer questions in isolation without considering that the answer to one question about their model may invalidate their answer to another question. What is totally lacking is any coherent explanation of how the currently observed earth could arise from the YEC Young Earth and Global Flood Models without a continous string of miracles generated to cover up the flood and make the earth look old.

FB

 

[LittleNipper]

Little Nipper,

You claimed the mountains were much smaller before the flood. In addition to the geological absurdity of this claim it has the following problem which I brought up earlier.

"But don't you (YECs) also use those mountains to sort the fossil record either by ecological zoning or differential escapability? How do you sort fossils through thousands of feet of sediments by these mechanisms with only "high hills"?"

Do you have an answer?

IMO this is one of many illustrations of the way YECs will try to answer questions in isolation without considering that the answer to one question about their model may invalidate their answer to another question. What is totally lacking is any coherent explanation of how the currently observed earth could arise from the YEC Young Earth and Global Flood Models without a continous string of miracles generated to cover up the flood and make the earth look old.

FB

What "geological absurdity?" There is NOTHING that would indicate that the earth always had mountains. Man MUST make certain assumptions. Those assumptions may seem very logical; however, they are still assumptions and nothing more.

We do not know how high the hills were. We do not know how swiftly the waters poured in throught the valleys. The logic is that coastal marine life was effected first. They would have been likely buried in silt first. Next would have been dumb animals. The is no indication that any of the dinosaurs were very smart. Birds and man would have likely been the longest hold outs. There is also the question of how species may have died may likely effect the chances of finding their fossils. The animals whose bodies floated would simply rot away to nothing. There would be no fossil formed. Those that sank in the very early stages of the Flood would be the most likely to be fossilized. Then there is the question of quantities.
The more animals of any given species the more likely it would seem that a fossil would be formed. We have NO idea how many men existed on the earth at the time of the Flood. There may have been only a few hundred. It would seem likely that there were a few thousand. But either is conjecture and not based on Biblical data.

My feeling is that nothing appears older then when it gets broken. I believe that the Flood was the breaking of the earth. Everything we see geologically, has been either throught the wash or put through the wringer. All earthquakes and volcanic action are either directly or the indirect results of the Flood.

The reality is, that evolutionists have taken past opportunities to develope a complex panoramic school of logic throught which they process all the data.
This was not true for creationism, because believers simply accepted the Bible as inspired. Since a TRUE Christian, knows and is having his faith built through LIFES experiences, he has no need to question GOD's creative abilities. The problem is that as exposure to GOD began to be limited in all areas and especially in education, there developed the need to reach people BEFORE they were indoctrinated into the fabric of secular thought and evolutionistic expressionism and or to counterbalance the view.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What "geological absurdity?" There is NOTHING that would indicate that the earth always had mountains. Man MUST make certain assumptions. Those assumptions may seem very logical; however, they are still assumptions and nothing more.

It is geological absurdity to postulate that there were no high mountains a few thousand years ago. It is total and absolute absurdity whether you admit it or not.

We do not know how high the hills were. We do not know how swiftly the waters poured in throught the valleys. The logic is that coastal marine life was effected first. They would have been likely buried in silt first. Next would have been dumb animals. The is no indication that any of the dinosaurs were very smart.

Apparently dinosaurs were smarter than Permian Mammal Like Reptiles but not as smart as most grasses.

Birds and man would have likely been the longest hold outs.

Holding out on what? The mountains that didn't exist before the flood? I guess sloths and grasses both outran pterosaurs and velociraptors up those short hills while thousand of feet of sediment were being deposited below them.

There is also the question of how species may have died may likely effect the chances of finding their fossils. The animals whose bodies floated would simply rot away to nothing. There would be no fossil formed.

And we have millions of fossils in museums and there are billions more in the ground. Where were all those animals living?

Those that sank in the very early stages of the Flood would be the most likely to be fossilized.

And somehow the terrestrial animals sank without getting mixed with marine life.

Then there is the question of quantities.
The more animals of any given species the more likely it would seem that a fossil would be formed. We have NO idea how many men existed on the earth at the time of the Flood.

Of course we don't since the global flood is a myth.

There may have been only a few hundred. It would seem likely that there were a few thousand. But either is conjecture and not based on Biblical data.

But we do have fossils of huge numbers of Oligocene and Miocene mammals. Somehow they all managed to escape getting buried with the dinosaurs. I guess they ran pretty fast up those high hills.

My feeling is that nothing appears older then when it gets broken. I believe that the Flood was the breaking of the earth. Everything we see geologically, has been either throught the wash or put through the wringer. All earthquakes and volcanic action are either directly or the indirect results of the Flood.

If all the volcanoes, especially those that form the large igneous provinces had erupted during the flood it would have produced enough SO2 to sterilize the oceans. We have a thread on that somewhere.

The reality is, that evolutionists have taken past opportunities to develope a complex panoramic school of logic throught which they process all the data.

The reality is that the falsifications of the global flood have nothing to do with evolution.

This was not true for creationism, because believers simply accepted the Bible as inspired.

It is the interpretation of the Bible that is in question. YEC force themselves to shut their minds to many sciences to support a particular intrepretation of scripture.

Since a TRUE Christian, knows and is having his faith built through LIFES experiences, he has no need to question GOD's creative abilities. The problem is that as exposure to GOD began to be limited in all areas and especially in education, there develope the need to reach people BEFORE they were indoctrinated into the fabric of secular thought and evolutionistic expressionism.

Ah the good old "true Scotsman Fallacy. I wonder if the others here have noticed how heavily YEC relies on various logical fallacies.

Nowhere in you post is an answer to the question of how the fossil record was sorted. In fact youi implicitly relied on mountains that you say didn't exist when you talked about "holding out".

Added in Edit: Link to thread on Large Igneous Provinces and other catastrophies.
FB

 

[Loudmouth]

What "geological absurdity?" There is NOTHING that would indicate that the earth always had mountains.

No one is saying that the Earth ALWAYS had mountains. What geologists are saying is that the mountains that the Earth does have are old and that they formed slowly over millions of years.

Man MUST make certain assumptions. Those assumptions may seem very logical; however, they are still assumptions and nothing more.

The only assumption being made is that the laws of physics and chemistry were the same in the past as they are now. This assumption is supported by observations in astronomy where light millions of years old tells the story of the constancy of physical and chemical laws. Therefore, it is an assumption that is supported by evidence.

We do not know how high the hills were. We do not know how swiftly the waters poured in throught the valleys.

So how would you figure this out? Through divine inspiration or science?

The logic is that coastal marine life was effected first. They would have been likely buried in silt first.

So if we find terrestrial animals buried under marine life would this falsify your hypothesis?

Next would have been dumb animals. The is no indication that any of the dinosaurs were very smart. Birds and man would have likely been the longest hold outs.

Then why do we find moles buried on top of birds?

There is also the question of how species may have died may likely effect the chances of finding their fossils. The animals whose bodies floated would simply rot away to nothing. There would be no fossil formed. Those that sank in the very early stages of the Flood would be the most likely to be fossilized. Then there is the question of quantities.

So which were the ones that floated and the ones that sank?

The more animals of any given species the more likely it would seem that a fossil would be formed. We have NO idea how many men existed on the earth at the time of the Flood. There may have been only a few hundred. It would seem likely that there were a few thousand. But either is conjecture and not based on Biblical data.

Fair enough, but we also have thousands of mammalian species that are all but absent except in the most recent sediments. This is a problem for your hypothesis.

My feeling is that nothing appears older then when it gets broken. I believe that the Flood was the breaking of the earth. Everything we see geologically, has been either throught the wash or put through the wringer. All earthquakes and volcanic action are either directly or the indirect results of the Flood.

How would this effect the isotopic content of a rock that is left whole? After all, what we see is that rocks are sorted by the ratio of K and Ar found in the rock, not to mention several other radionuclide ratios.

The reality is, that evolutionists have taken past opportunities to develope a complex panoramic school of logic throught which they process all the data.

Yes, and it is called the scientific method.

This was not true for creationism, because believers simply accepted the Bible as inspired.

Pretty big assumption, isn't it? What scientific evidence do you have that this assumption is correct?

Since a TRUE Christian, knows and is having his faith built through LIFES experiences, he has no need to question GOD's creative abilities.

So why do you object to evolution being the tool that God used to create?

The problem is that as exposure to GOD began to be limited in all areas and especially in education, there developed the need to reach people BEFORE they were indoctrinated into the fabric of secular thought and evolutionistic expressionism and or to counterbalance the view.

So how do you explain people who were raised as christians, remain christians their whole life, and still accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation for the biodiversity we see today? How do you explain people who were raised as christians, remain christians, and still accept that the Earth is about 4.55 billion years old?

 

[random_guy]

What "geological absurdity?" There is NOTHING that would indicate that the earth always had mountains. Man MUST make certain assumptions. Those assumptions may seem very logical; however, they are still assumptions and nothing more.

We do not know how high the hills were. We do not know how swiftly the waters poured in throught the valleys. The logic is that coastal marine life was effected first. They would have been likely buried in silt first. Next would have been dumb animals. The is no indication that any of the dinosaurs were very smart. Birds and man would have likely been the longest hold outs. There is also the question of how species may have died may likely effect the chances of finding their fossils. The animals whose bodies floated would simply rot away to nothing. There would be no fossil formed. Those that sank in the very early stages of the Flood would be the most likely to be fossilized. Then there is the question of quantities.
The more animals of any given species the more likely it would seem that a fossil would be formed. We have NO idea how many men existed on the earth at the time of the Flood. There may have been only a few hundred. It would seem likely that there were a few thousand. But either is conjecture and not based on Biblical data.

You have to admit, the assumptions lead to very absurb conclusions. For example, why did flowering pollen get sorted above grass pollen by the floods? Why did certain fish species survive worst than certain horses?

The reality is, that evolutionists have taken past opportunities to develope a complex panoramic school of logic throught which they process all the data.
This was not true for creationism, because believers simply accepted the Bible as inspired. Since a TRUE Christian, knows and is having his faith built through LIFES experiences, he has no need to question GOD's creative abilities. The problem is that as exposure to GOD began to be limited in all areas and especially in education, there developed the need to reach people BEFORE they were indoctrinated into the fabric of secular thought and evolutionistic expressionism and or to counterbalance the view.

Don't you think faith based science is a bad thing? Where would we be if we had faith that our bridges didn't fall or our buildings were structurally sound? Would you rather have an engineer who had faith in his structures or an engineer who provides evidence why his structures are sound?

You make it sound like logic is a bad thing and that it's too complex, and that faith is all you need. That kind of thinking will lead us back to the Dark Ages.