Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[Test All Things2]

Split Rock:

You were there with the rocks. The bark was there with the rocks. You are claiming the bark must be billions of years old. Get it now?


I cannot make the same association you do about the rock being billions of years old. Not at all. You lost me there. I answered that the rock has to be thousands of years old.

Aren't you claiming that it was deposited there by a world wide flood that occurred thousands of years ago?

Yes that would be what I believe Split Rock.....completely.

and then what? Stick them into "hardrock" formations??? LOL

Some process STUCK THE TREE BARK THERE...any person with common sense could easily come to that conclusion. I think you could classify that as using common sense don't you agree with me about that? Come on now......

 

[Test All Things2]

Split Rock: there is more....the angular fragrments were not crystals....they appeared to be sedimentary in nature as their size varied greatly. Silification or calcification...yes something was changing the compostion of whatever that deposit started out as.

I have seen layers of chert (hard like glass) interspersed in these gravel layers too.

Or should I say that appear very similar in nature to a chert. Very hard in nature.

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock:

You were there with the rocks. The bark was there with the rocks. You are claiming the bark must be billions of years old. Get it now?


I cannot make the same association you do about the rock being billions of years old. Not at all. You lost me there. I answered that the rock has to be thousands of years old.

Aren't you claiming that it was deposited there by a world wide flood that occurred thousands of years ago?

Yes that would be what I believe Split Rock.....completely.

and then what? Stick them into "hardrock" formations??? LOL

Some process STUCK THE TREE BARK THERE...any person with common sense could easily come to that conclusion. I think you could classify that as using common sense don't you agree with me about that? Come on now......

Split Rock: there is more....the angular fragrments were not crystals....they appeared to be sedimentary in nature as their size varied greatly. Silification or calcification...yes something was changing the compostion of whatever that deposit started out as.

I have seen layers of chert (hard like glass) interspersed in these gravel layers too.

Or should I say that appear very similar in nature to a chert. Very hard in nature.

Please explain how any of this is a result of a world-wide flood. All you seem to do is come up with stuff you found which you cannot explain (not surprising perhaps as you are not a geologist) and then claim it must be the result of a world-wide flood. "I found fingernails in bedrock! FLOOD! "I found toothpast in my napsack! FLOOD!! LOL!!

 

[Test All Things2]

Split Rock: you MISS THE POINT......

If it wasn't a flood...WHAT DID THAT....SIMPLE QUESTIONS

HOW DID BARK GET IN THE ROCK?
HOW OLD IS IT? Millions or Thousands?

But there are always the red-herrings to sidetrack the pressing issue presnted......

Never answer the original question(s)??????????

Everybody is watching or listening for your response.....

You like to turn it back on me trying to explain??????

I posed the questions my beliefs are based in.....

I am not a geologist that is true.

You obviously espose great knowledge....I asked you for an explanation....come-on take a try at it

 

[Orogeny]

If it wasn't a flood...WHAT DID THAT....SIMPLE QUESTIONS

Probably the same geologic processes in operation today.

HOW DID BARK GET IN THE ROCK?

It was deposited there, just like the other clasts in the rock

HOW OLD IS IT? Millions or Thousands?

Find a tuff layer and date it. Do a detrital zircon analysis on the clasts within the rock and determine a maximum depositional age. Find an index fossil within the rock. There are many ways to determine the age of a rock.

Never answer the original question(s)??????????

Present a coherent problem, a coherent question to be answered. You spend so much time pointing fingers and punctuating and so little time actually making sure your posts are coherent.

Present a picture or some data and tell us what you want to know about it.

 

[Belk]

Belk: I did pose a question to my professor that he could not give an answer to. Is that totally incomphrehensible....impossible for that to happen?....you portray I am making that up?

It happened....sorry to burst your bubble.

I do not deserve anything, but I did ask a question that defies the logic that time-based systems are based upon. He said he had never considered that possibilty.

But no I am a liar or lunatic?

I did not portray you as making up anything. I just fail to find your personal incredulity in the face of real world results convincing. So you asked a question a college professor was unable to answer. That s nice, but it does not mean I'm going to play your "explain this" game. If your points had any validity they would have been incorporated into scientific theories.

 

[Davian]

...
Everybody is watching or listening for your response.....

...

I'm watching and waiting to see how long it takes you to figure out how to use the quote function.

 

[Split Rock]

Split Rock: you MISS THE POINT......

If it wasn't a flood...WHAT DID THAT....SIMPLE QUESTIONS

HOW DID BARK GET IN THE ROCK?
HOW OLD IS IT? Millions or Thousands?

But there are always the red-herrings to sidetrack the pressing issue presnted......

Never answer the original question(s)??????????

Everybody is watching or listening for your response.....

You like to turn it back on me trying to explain??????

I posed the questions my beliefs are based in.....

I am not a geologist that is true.

You obviously espose great knowledge....I asked you for an explanation....come-on take a try at it

I did answer your questions. The bark was deposited by the water you mentioned percoalting through the rocks. How would I know how old the rocks were? You claimed they had been dated to billions of years... did you make that up or not? What type of rock was it? Why is everything you mentioned evidence of The Flood?

 

[Test All Things2]

Davian:

I love how this always gets turned around to semantics....

I do not know how to use the quote function?

You are obviously much smarter than me therefore?

I am a moron because I do not use it like you?

What are you saying?

I would wonder if you would say that to me if we were face to face?

Semantics must trump the challenge?

 

[Test All Things2]

Orogeny:

good to hear from you again. You are right....the same processes are at work right now. Right again about be deposited there. I do not personally know, but I am sure you offer good advice about trying to date the rock too.

I thought I did offer a coherent puzzle or question...enigma whatever you want to classify it as. Why would there be so much geologic diversity within a few feet of each other? The angular nature of the matrix of the deposit that contained still fiberous tree bark that layed on top of huge rounded river boulders?

And the other question was the bark thousands, millions or billions of years old.

Is there something incoherent about those questions? I am straining to follow along with your reasoning here.

 

[Test All Things2]

Split Rock: so the water dis-assembled the bark into minute micro particles that perculated through the rock, and found a suitable space to perfectly recreate the tree bark intact?

Kind of like beaming the bark into the rock deposit? Is that what you are saying?

Help me to understand?

I did answer your questions. The bark was deposited by the water you mentioned percoalting through the rocks. How would I know how old the rocks were? You claimed they had been dated to billions of years... did you make that up or not? What type of rock was it? Why is everything you mentioned evidence of The Flood?

I was insinuating what evolutionists (including most geologists) would claim the age of the rocks to be.

I guess I have to carefully lead you by the hand and explain everything for you to grasp my meaning eh?

I told you repeatedly I believe the rocks to be THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD, but you have not noticed my responses?

I have already stated that such an enigma could be explained by a rapid chaotic event such as a flood...go back and check for yourself.....do you want me to exactly detail this exactly where and how I said it...will that help you to understand?

 

[Test All Things2]

Belk:

You are right....THEORIES.....ideas....hypothesis.....not totally proven fact without a time machine

 

[Davian]

Davian:

I love how this always gets turned around to semantics....

I do not know how to use the quote function?

You are obviously much smarter than me therefore?

I am a moron because I do not use it like you?

What are you saying?

I would wonder if you would say that to me if we were face to face?

Semantics must trump the challenge?

Semantics? Where?

In person I would have happily shown you how to format your responses, with a quick walk-through of basic HTML - if you had asked politely for assistance.

All I am saying is that I believe that proper quoting of the post you are responding to could - perhaps - make your posts more coherent and easier to follow. On not.

Carry on.

 

[Doveaman]

In that particular hypothesis, the only logical recourse is to say "I don't know". Calling it 'God-Energy' is intellectually vapid, regardless of the veracity of dark matter.

But even if a physical source of energy is found it would still have been supplied by God. Hence, God-Energy.

"For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible". (Col 1:16).

 

[Test All Things2]

You get used to having to defend yourself from that in this forum, and I am sorry if I missed your point. Forgive me my error.....but I still think there is enough of my intent revealed regardless of the exact arrangement or styling of the text.

My hypothesis was plain enough.......the questions I posed are not hard to decipher

How did the bark get there? Orogeny was the only one that offered a reply with substance.....not engage in some wordplay war.

that is why I like it when he comes into the discussion. He puts his knowledge to the words. A possible explaination....that is what I was seeking

How old would the bark be? Again Orogeny is the only one offering some coherent answer.

Now how about how long could bark stay intact in a wet enviroment? Someone skilled in science could answer that part of this I am sure

 

[Davian]

Do animals do that? What evolutionary advantage is there for believing in things that don't exist?

The animal that flees, to avoid being eaten, lives to have more babies than the one that waits to see if it really was a predator hiding in the bushes. Natural selection favours the ones with the more 'active' imaginations.

From youtube: Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson

YouTube - ‪Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09‬‏

 

[Belk]

Belk:

You are right....THEORIES.....ideas....hypothesis.....not totally proven fact without a time machine

Theories are based upon facts and never become proven. All knowledge is conditional. That is the way it works. Doesn't get rid of the large bodies of evidence we have that support the theories nor does it mean that all ideas on the past have equal validity.

 

[Davian]

Wouldn't you have to believe in God before you would believe that he has influence in your life? What if you only imagine that God has influence in your life?

What if you only imagine the Sun goes up every day? It is not as if we have any absolute proof for anything.

We can't prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow, therefore God might exist? How desperate are you?

And I don't imagine that the sun 'goes up' every day. I imagine that the earth rotates daily so as to expose my part of the planet to the Sun. Or so I have to assume, being that the number of non-cloudy days are very low in this part of the world. It does definitely get brighter. And, to the best of my knowledge, it does that where I am here to observe it or not. Whether I believe it or not.

How does that compare to 'God'? I am not asking for 'proof', just something testable.

 

[Doveaman]

No. If it is not statistically significant, then it didn't happen.

Statistically significant by what method?

If God only healed two people, isn't that significant?

If it happened, then it's statistically significant. So which is it? Does God heal the sick (in which case we can observe a statistically significant piece of data), or does God not show up in the data (in which case he very rarely heals, if at all)?

What do you mean by “show up”?

You mean like in the flesh?

Doctors don’t always have the scientific means to heal a sick person, and when that person is healed doctors have no scientific explanation for the healing. That’s because God “showed up” after the doctors prayed.

The former being indistinguishable from regular hurricanes, and the latter being utterly without evidence.

Your scientific method needs to be supplemented with the theological method so that through the theo-scientific method you will find evidence. The scientific method alone is incapable on comprehending the true essence of reality.

Yes, praise be to the God who gives us a brain but not a vaccine.

It’s not God's fault that we caught the virus because our common ancestor ate the forbidden fruit.

 

[Doveaman]

Wouldn't you have to believe in God before you would believe that he has influence in your life? What if you only imagine that God has influence in your life?

How it works is that the Bible predicts what we would expect if God is influencing us. When we experience those predicted effects, the success of those predictions then serve as confirmation that God is influencing us.