Proof of Creation?

[Doveaman]

How do you determine which stories are accurate records of history?

If it’s in the Bible, it’s accurate.

First, God didn't write the Bible. The Bible was written by men.

That’s like saying you didn’t type your posts, the computer did.

Men are but instruments in God’s hands.

"All Scripture is God-breathed" -- (2 Tim 3:16)

Second, you are throwing out conclusions simply because they conflict with your already held religious beliefs. You can't find any mistake in the methodology that would produce false results. You start with the conclusion, and then throw out any data that conflicts with your preconceived conclusion.

The conclusion is history. You cannot change history. The data must be consistent with the history.

What observations, if made, would not support that record?

What features in a geologic formation, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

What features in a fossil, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

What features in a genome, if observed, would not support the biblical record?

If you are going to claim that the evidence supports the biblical record, then you need to show how the biblical record is falsifiable.

Falsifiable?

The biblical record is not a falsifiable theory, it’s an irrefutable fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

If it’s in the Bible, it’s accurate.

No matter what? I take it that no matter what evidence I show you, you will claim that the Bible is still accurate?

If you are just here to preach, I think you are wasting your time.

The biblical record is not a falsifiable theory, it’s an irrefutable fact.

If it isn't falsifiable, then it is a dogmatic belief.

 

[Kylie]

Eternal Dragon, it seems you have missed my last reply to you, so I shall repeat it...

First Dinosaur Fossil Discoveries - Paleontology and Geology Glossary

Where Can Fossils Be Found? | eHow

Locations of Dinosaur Digs | Scholastic.com

Here all you bring to the dig are a shovel, pick and awl or a screwdriver.
Best places to find dinosaur bones are ON THE SURFACE. Fossils are not
buried by millions of years of layers of sediment. They were buried very
recently near the surface. Kids even can find them.

The deepest fossil ever found was 2.256 kilometers below ground. The World's Deepest Dinosaur Finding -- 2256 Metres Below The Seabed -- ScienceDaily

Now you will be telling me millions of years of erosion wore down the
sediment in those locations, after the dinosaur bones were buried and
worn down to that exact spot.

Is there some reason why it couldn't happen? Erosion wears down the land all the time.

Nothing disturbed the other fossils
supposedly under the dinosaur fossils though, eh?

Not yet, but I'm sure if you allow erosion to continue, it will get there eventually.

You do know how erosion works, don't you?

I'm not screaming at you at all. I am just asking that you learn the
real facts. Explore a little beyond what you want to believe.

It seems you are lacking some facts as well.

 

[stevevw]

The deepest fossil ever found was 2.256 kilometers below ground. The World's Deepest Dinosaur Finding -- 2256 Metres Below The Seabed -- ScienceDaily

Is there some reason why it couldn't happen? Erosion wears down the land all the time.

Not yet, but I'm sure if you allow erosion to continue, it will get there eventually.

You do know how erosion works, don't you?

It seems you are lacking some facts as well.

So how do the fossils on mountain still remain. If erosion is so strong and it can wear something down that far then how come mountains dont get completely eroded away. They are suppose to have happened millions of years ago with enough time to just about erode the entire mountain away. Yet they still have sea life fossils on them and even water ripple marks like they have hardly been eroded.

 

[stevevw]

They do erode away, some erode and leave the hard parts standing tall like they do in monument valley in the US.
Type 'monument valley' into Google and see for yourself.

Yes but if they erode all that softer sediments in which the fossils are found that are on top of a mountain, how are they still there after millions of years of erosion.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes but if they erode all that softer sediments in which the fossils are found that are on top of a mountain, how are they still there after millions of years of erosion.

Mountains aren't constant. They don't suddenly form, then just sit there.

As the continents move the oceans change shape and the mountains grow.

 

[stevevw]

Mountains aren't constant. They don't suddenly form, then just sit there.

As the continents move the oceans change shape and the mountains grow.

I understand that. But when the mountains are first formed and pushed up the outer surface is the crust. The surface of the crust is the sedimentary layers which have the fossils. So you would assume that the sedimentary layers would erode first no matter what shape the mount changed into. If it was pushed up higher the surface is still the fist to be eroded. The rate of erosion can be something like 2mm a year. So as you would imagine a mountain can lose a mighty lot of its surface over millions of years.

 

[bhsmte]

If it’s in the Bible, it’s accurate

The beauty of circular logic - very little thought is required.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand that. But when the mountains are first formed and pushed up the outer surface is the crust. The surface of the crust is the sedimentary layers which have the fossils. So you would assume that the sedimentary layers would erode first no matter what shape the mount changed into. If it was pushed up higher the surface is still the fist to be eroded. The rate of erosion can be something like 2mm a year. So as you would imagine a mountain can lose a mighty lot of its surface over millions of years.

There are lots of sediments that aren't uplifted, but still accessible due to rivers that cut through them. How are you going to erode away the entire basin that houses the Colorado River, for example.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is the lunacy of ED's position. He has stated that if the Earth were really old that we would have very few sediments or fossils. He actually thinks that an area covered with water for millions of years can't make fossils or sediments, but it can be done in a single year by Noah's flood. Does that makes sense to anyone?

 

[Split Rock]

The biblical record is not a falsifiable theory, it’s an irrefutable fact.

Is your interpretation of the bible irrefutable fact?

 

[EternalDragon]

Here is the lunacy of ED's position. He has stated that if the Earth were really old that we would have very few sediments or fossils. He actually thinks that an area covered with water for millions of years can't make fossils or sediments, but it can be done in a single year by Noah's flood. Does that makes sense to anyone?

That is not what I said. You have done the same thing thing you do
with the bible. Twist the words for your own agenda.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is not what I said. You have done the same thing thing you do
with the bible. Twist the words for your own agenda.

I asked you this question:

"What geologic features would be inconsistent with a recent global flood and a young Earth?"

This was your response:

"Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure
someone more familiar with geology can come up with more. "

Are you denying you said these words, because it sure looks like it.

I asked you what would be inconsistent with a young Earth, and you said little sediment and no chalk cliffs. Let's look at those chalk cliffs first. Here is a picture of one of those chalk deposits with a two story building on top for context:

According to you, these chalk cliffs were produced in a single year. Now keep in mind, these cliffs are made up of tiny, tiny little critters called coccolithophores. These deposits of hundreds of feet of fossils:

It is their carbonate shells that produce the deposits. So you have all of those critters living, dying, and then settling to the sea floor during the few months of the flood. However, you also claim that this same deposit could NOT be produced over millions of years through the same process.

Please, try and defend your position, because from where I sit it is laughable.

 

[EternalDragon]

I asked you this question:

"What geologic features would be inconsistent with a recent global flood and a young Earth?"

This was your response:

"Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure
someone more familiar with geology can come up with more. "

Are you denying you said these words, because it sure looks like it.

I asked you what would be inconsistent with a young Earth, and you said little sediment and no chalk cliffs. Let's look at those chalk cliffs first. Here is a picture of one of those chalk deposits with a two story building on top for context:

According to you, these chalk cliffs were produced in a single year. Now keep in mind, these cliffs are made up of tiny, tiny little critters called coccolithophores. These deposits of hundreds of feet of fossils:

It is their carbonate shells that produce the deposits. So you have all of those critters living, dying, and then settling to the sea floor during the few months of the flood. However, you also claim that this same deposit could NOT be produced over millions of years through the same process.

Please, try and defend your position, because from where I sit it is laughable.

I've discussed that in another forum at length. Not going to go over it
again.

You laugh at everything that does not line up to your naturalistic views.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've discussed that in another forum at length. Not going to go over it
again.

You laugh at everything that does not line up to your naturalistic views.

Are you saying that flood deposits are best explained supernaturally? They were just magicked into position?

 

[Split Rock]

That is not what I said. You have done the same thing thing you do
with the bible. Twist the words for your own agenda.

I asked you this question:

"What geologic features would be inconsistent with a recent global flood and a young Earth?"

This was your response:

"Nearly zero fossilized specimens. Little sediment. No chalk cliffs. I am sure
someone more familiar with geology can come up with more. "

Are you denying you said these words, because it sure looks like it.

Please, try and defend your position, because from where I sit it is laughable.

I've discussed that in another forum at length. Not going to go over it
again.

You laugh at everything that does not line up to your naturalistic views.

Sorry, ED, but this is a big cop out.

Can't you at least summarize your reasoning?... because I don't get it either..

 

[Split Rock]

Are you saying that flood deposits are best explained supernaturally? They were just magicked into position?

According to AVET, God swept up all the dead coccolithophores (that he killed off during The Flood) and piled them up to make the Cliffs of White Dover. Supposedly, this was for reasons of "safety and sanitation."

 

[bhsmte]

According to AVET, God swept up all the dead coccolithophores (that he killed off during The Flood) and piled them up to make the Cliffs of White Dover. Supposedly, this was for reasons of "safety and sanitation."

Really?

Was there an EPA back then?

 

[Loudmouth]

According to AVET, God swept up all the dead coccolithophores (that he killed off during The Flood) and piled them up to make the Cliffs of White Dover. Supposedly, this was for reasons of "safety and sanitation."

Magical scooping of fossils by deities resulting in deposits that are indistinguishable from naturally formed chalk layers from millions of years of settling would certainly qualify as supernatural mechanisms that I would not consider. I don't think Occam would approve, either.

 

[Davian]

Magical scooping of fossils by deities resulting in deposits that are indistinguishable from naturally formed chalk layers from millions of years of settling would certainly qualify as supernatural mechanisms that I would not consider. I don't think Occam would approve, either.

"God cleans up in mysterious ways." - unknown