But somehow you know that what geologists are putting forward is wrong. So you know better geology than they.
So how do you know the 'true results' of saying the age of the Deccan Traps?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But somehow you know that what geologists are putting forward is wrong. So you know better geology than they.Nope, but I don’t think for one minute that mainstream scientists are going to remotely accept something that would prove them DAs… do you?
Intentional or unintentional, any actual biasNope, if you truly believe something you're not falsifying.
That's vague enough.It might be beneficial for you to research in a different way than you normally do.
How do you? Surely, not by comparing with recent powder-puff volcanoes (Mt. St. Helens is very small compared to these babies, and watch a documentary about people who witnessed it). The volume of lava flow and debris in the eruptions you mention were far too great to be analyzed with anything observed in the recent past. These things would have happened fast, like mega hydrogen bombs fast. Now consider the energy released in the colossal eruptions of the flood… off the chart, ripped the world apart! And, you propose a measurement when you can’t tell the difference between slow-and-gradual and instantaneous explosions.But somehow you know that what geologists are putting forward is wrong. So you know better geology than they.
So how do you know the 'true results' of saying the age of the Deccan Traps?
I have to.That's vague enough.
Do you apply that advice to yourself?
Look for the possibility of 'rapid' results instead of 'slow and gradual.'Tell me where / how I should look that I have not.
Your last paragraph is very interesting.Hello PrincetonGuy, I've begun looking into this, and this is what I've found (so far) concerning Spurgeon's beliefs.
Old Earth, yes.Evolution, of any kind/of any creature, no.
I have found his views on this topic to be interesting (for Spurgeon anyway) since they seem to be lacking in both consistency and thoroughness. There appears to be much more to consider however (which I hope will change my opinion .. concerning consistency/thoroughness), and if/when I find more, I will report back about it (if I think that it's worth sharing).
Thank you for broaching this topic
God bless you!!
--David
p.s. - here are just a couple of short excepts from Spurgeon's writings concerning "evolution". A student once asked Mr. Spurgeon, “Are we justified in receiving Mr. Darwin’s or any other theory of evolution?” Spurgeon's answer (in small part) was:
Does Revelation teach us evolution? It never has struck me, and it does not strike now, that the theory of evolution can, by any process of argument, be reconciled with the inspired record of the Creation. You remember how it is distinctly stated, again and again, that the Lord made each creature “after its kind.” There are abundant evidences that one creature inclines towards another in certain respects, for all are bound together in a wondrous way which indicates that they are all the product of God’s creative will; but what the advocates of evolution appear to forget is, that there is nowhere to be discovered an actual chain of growth from one creature to another..
How exactly were the olive trees still standing after being covered with 5 miles of water for a year, and then covered with 2 miles of sediments when God did the cleanup you postulate? I'm not a botanist, but I guess that would be a little tough on olive trees, yes?Olives?
Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
Per the OP, even the famous 19th century Baptist preacher, Charles Spurgeon, knew those fossils were very old. People knew this even when all they had was the crude tools of the 19th century.Oh yeah, the millions and millions of years answer is the only possibility.
Have you even checked? A simple check would have revealed that scientists knew of creationist claims for decades and provided detailed responses.Why does science ignore the possibility of violent eruptions and cooling during a catastrophic flood causing the formation of polar ice?
Speaking for myself, you'll notice that I don't dispute what geologists are looking at.But somehow you know that what geologists are putting forward is wrong.
Having done a dual major, biology / geology II have to.
Look for the possibility of 'rapid' results instead of 'slow and gradual.'
Simple.How exactly were the olive trees still standing after being covered with 5 miles of water for a year, and then covered with 2 miles of sediments when God did the cleanup you postulate? I'm not a botanist, but I guess that would be a little tough on olive trees, yes?
Good point. Sometimes I get so fixated on offering a challenge to the 'slow and gradual' with 'rapid' that I forget about 'embedded age.'Speaking for myself, you'll notice that I don't dispute what geologists are looking at.
If they say they see A then B then C then D then ETC three miles down, I don't dispute it.
What I disagree with though, are their conclusions.
That is, how those layers got there.
Some say it was a jillion years of natural process that layered them, while others say it was hydrological sorting that layered them.
I don't agree with either.
If you are committed to last thursdayismGood point. Sometimes I get so fixated on offering a challenge to the 'slow and gradual' with 'rapid' that I forget about 'embedded age.'
Well, my non-linear time wild card and 'slow & gradual' challenges are not accepted very well either..
If you are committed to last thursdayism
and flood water on Neptune, just say so
now, so you can join your pal in igcity
and not waste my time.
DNA would have taken up much less space with the added bonus of no animal feed stock needed and no cleanup of animal droppings neededOne scenario is that there were massive floating mats of vegetation where plants could grow. As the water subsided, the mats came to rest on the earth and now you have flora as well as flora. Noah's family had to eat. No doubt they took plenty of seed for crops with them in the ark. There was fodder for the non-carnivorous animals. And yes, animals do eat other animals. They had a year and a month to breed. Many animals produce large litters. There would have been enough food for the very small population of animals.
Present an actual challenge withWell, my non-linear time wild card and 'slow & gradual' challenges are not accepted very well either.
Or just disappear all the badguys and spare theDNA would have taken up much less space with the added bonus of no animal feed stock needed and no cleanup of animal droppings needed
That's your discerning heart at work!Good point. Sometimes I get so fixated on offering a challenge to the 'slow and gradual' with 'rapid' that I forget about 'embedded age.'
What have you got against Neptune?If you are committed to last thursdayism and flood water on Neptune, just say so now, so you can join your pal in igcity
and not waste my time.
If you're going to consign him to "igcity" because of his beliefs, just do it and stop whining about it.You did not say if you are committed to last thursdayism. Please clarify.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?