- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,140
- 51,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
In the case of the Flood, it's not the evidence that matters, it's WHERE that evidence is now.Brace for SEDI
Upvote
0
In the case of the Flood, it's not the evidence that matters, it's WHERE that evidence is now.Brace for SEDI
Cool. Can I ask you some questions?Having done a dual major, biology / geology I
have some familiarity with the topics here.
If your hypothesis involves "then a miracle happened" that immediately makes me question. You have heard many claims of miracles. And I think you would agree with me that most claims of miracles aren't really miracles. Some claims perhaps, but certainly not the majority.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.
Simply compare what you see only three miles down, with the ORDER of the creation events during the creation week.Alas the evidence all looks like what we would expect if life had evolved over millions of years. None of it looks like what we would expect if God had done a miraculous cleanup after the flood.
I'm not a good reference on that.Cool. Can I ask you some questions?
1. I heard that 50% of the rock above the Precambrian layer is igneous (volcanic). If so, that presents a huge challenge to believers in flood geology. Is that the correct figure?
2. I heard that the average depth of rocks above the Precambrian layer is 2 miles worldwide. I see now that the depth on land is about twice the depth in the ocean, so perhaps that number just applies to continents. Is that true?. Again, this would be a huge challenge to believers in flood geology.
Wickedness has little to do with science. I am sure there bad actors and wickedness in all professions even among creationists and clergy.Remember, we're dealing with spiritual wickedness in high places.
How many tries did it take the scientific community to reach 97% consensus?
Good guess
That's a link to Post 62 in another thread.Good guess
Better still, one fact contrary to ToE.Wickedness has little to do with science. I am sure there bad actors and wickedness in all professions even among creationists and clergy.
Depends on how you define "tries." If you count the pieces of evidence supporting evolution you are well into the billions. If you count the number of scientists since Darwin who have contributed to the ToE you are well into the 10s of thousands If you count the number of hypotheses contributing to the ToE, it is likely in the well over a million. Keep in mind that all sciences grow with new tools, new developments and with corrections.
A question for you. How man creation scientists are there and how many hypotheses have they contributed? Approximate numbers are welcome.
If you deny there are creationist scientists I'll keep 62 which is likely near accurate as to the number of scientific hypothesis submitted by creationists which is higher that 0 implied in your answer.That's a link to Post 62 in another thread.
Fair enough.If you deny there are creationist scientists I'll keep 62 which is likely near accurate as to the number of scientific hypothesis submitted by creationists which is higher that 0 implied in your answer.
But Genesis has the order wrong.Simply compare what you see only three miles down, with the ORDER of the creation events during the creation week.
If that doesn't yell GOD DID IT, what will?
Genesis has:But Genesis has the order wrong.
First it lists plants and specifically mentions grass and fruit trees. But flowering plants did not come until the Cretaceous, and grasses did not come until the Cenozoic, both far up the column. So no, these were not first. See Timeline of plant evolution - Wikipedia
Next it lists birds, whales, and other marine animals. Genesis was right on marine animals being early, but wrong on birds and whales being early.
Next it lists land animals, which were long before whales and birds, so this was wrong.
Next it lists humans. OK, humans are a late comer.
I wouldn't say this order is impressive.
I think everything in red is an error.Genesis has:
1. Earth before Sun
2. Light before Sun
3. Plants before marine organisms
4. Fruit bearing trees before fish
5. Birds before insects
6. Plants before Sun
7. Man before rain
8. Whales before land animals
Any answer is as true as any otherI think everything in red is an error.
And if #2 said daylight on earth before the sun, which appears to be the teaching of Genesis, then #2 is also wrong.
0 for 8? That's not very good.
If I was teaching creationism, and you took that attitude, you'd probably fail my class.Any answer is as true as any other
I think everything in red is an error.
And if #2 said daylight on earth before the sun, which appears to be the teaching of Genesis, then #2 is also wrong.
0 for 8? That's not very good.
Earth before the Sun and Plants before the Sun; but, not before God’s light. Perhaps God wanted us to know the process was His and not just a natural one. The other orders may have been for the same reason. That hasn’t been really clear for some though.Any answer is as true as any other
It amazes me that you think that these repeated attempts at dodging, deflection, obfuscation etc somehow reflects on the position you want to defend. Do you expect me or any other reader to have moved one inch closer to christianity when that's the only thing you can do when confronted with even the slightest inquiry? For me that is a sign of weakness, not of strength. It suggests that christianity or creationism needs to be shielded from even the slightest closer look.It amazes me that college educated people can believe a comet hit the earth and gave us seven seas, but then go so far as put someone on IGNORE because they think God took some water off the earth and put it somewhere else.
The deuterium/hydrogen (D/H) ratio of the Earth's oceans is different from that of comets, so that cometary impacts were probably not the source of the Earth's water. The D/H ratio of asteroids is nearer to the Earth's D/H ratio, so it is more plausible (although not certain) that the Earth's water came from the impacts of asteroids. (This is over-simplifying a complex problem). Whichever it was, there must have been many impacts over a long period of time, not a single cometary or asteroidal impact.It amazes me that college educated people can believe a comet hit the earth and gave us seven seas, but then go so far as put someone on IGNORE because they think God took some water off the earth and put it somewhere else.