Supremacy challenge part 2

[KWCrazy]

According to verifiable evidence.

Verified by whom?
You don't have any evidence of a natural creation, therefore you have no idea of the proper sequence. However, if you ever created a balanced terrarium you started out with the base and then added the mature elements to be able to make it function. Think of the earth as a balanced terrarium and the order makes perfect sense.

I have a PhD in geology. (Don't try to get me to play Job)

So you study rocks.
Have you created any?
Are you good enough in gemology to tell a perfect man made carbon based diamond from a naturally formed carbon based diamond?
When you see layers of rocks, do you automatically accept the explanation of your instructors as to how they formed?
If the great flood covered the mountains the water would be over 400 meters deep with a weight of over 7,300 pounds per inch. How much sediment to you figure could be crushed into sedimentary rock at those pressures?

Interesting because evidence for land plants doesn't show up for a LOOOONG time after aquatic photosynthesizing plants show up in the earth record.

According to your hypothesis; which of course requires long ages due to the improbability of any one thing advancing into a more complex being with subsequent generations. The other hypothesis is that you are quite simply wrong and God created the world in its mature state, just as you would a balanced terrarium.

So for the first 4 billion years of earth's existence all these things lived by this "light" and then only about 470 million years ago the first landplants show up.

You seem to confuse four days with four billion years.

Except it can.

You have a time machine?

But if you really want to say that then you can NEVER EVER EVER RELY ON THE POLICE TO SOLVE A CRIME.

They don't have time machines either.

So there is no way for them to ever solve the crime.

They don't solve crimes by observing the past. They solve crimes by figuring out who had motive, opportunity and the weapon used. Fingerprints can tell if a person has been in the area, but if they had a perfectly good reason to be there it proves nothing. Witnesses help, but witnesses see things in the present, not the past.

In reality if you want to play that game then you can only observe the present and speculate about the present.

More accurately, we observe, evaluate and interpret what our senses present us as reality. If I see daylight I don't have to speculate about whether it is day or night unless I have reason to doubt my senses; such as the presence or exterior lighting.

According to YOU. Obviously there are many of your fellow Christians who say you are WRONG.

I have yet to meet one who doesn't understand that the Bible uses parables and metaphors in certain circumstances. Perhaps you could name three who do.

Ahh, you see I have many patents.

Which means that clearly anyone who DOESN'T KNOW ME can NEVER UNDERSTAND MY INVENTIONS.

Poor marketing on your part, then. Perhaps you should study Ron Popiel. He's worth about $100 million because of the way he marketed his patents.

Even though I have fully enabled the inventions so that anyone reading it with standard knowledge of the chemical arts can do it. You just told me that they cannot because they do not know me.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking your patents reside in the physical world. Notice I do no say real. I say physical. Which is more real; that which is eternal or that which is transient? A fog may exist for a while but then it's gone. The universe is the same way. It's temporary. Our existence is eternal like God is eternal. When the fog passes the trees still remain, though you couldn't see them earlier. When this physical world passes away we will be in the eternal world; either with our Creator or apart from Him.

Or would you like to resort to the usual special pleading for God.

Why should I? If you can't grasp that there is more to our existence than this temporary dwelling place then how would I expect you to understand the truth?
You look down a railroad track and your eyes see the tracks converging. Do they?
When you hold a seashell to your ear, do you hear the ocean, or do you hear the amplified sound of air circulating around your inner ear?
If I could reach into nothingness and hand you a tomato, you might think of how the tomato plant was grown from a seed, planted in the earth, watered and cared for until it's fruit had grown. Then the tomato was picked, shipped and sent to the marketplace where I bought it and concealed it just to had it to you. All this might be true if the tomato had been grown, but since I created it from nothing and passed it to you all your natural assumptions about how tomatoes come into being are wrong when it comes to this tomato.
Everything in Genesis was formed it its mature state; from grasses with seeds in them to Adam being created a full grown man. The earth was created perfectly ready to host all the living things which the Lord caused to be formed. This is not a deception. The Bible is very clear about the creation. It is not possible to formulate a correct explanation of the evolution of living things if those things did not, in fact, evolve.

Actually proteins and DNA bases can be made in the lab. It's pretty straight forward organic chemistry.

However, chirality disproves the likelihood of an random combination of amino acids to create even the simplest of life forms.

And there's the "out". There is no way to disprove the Bible making it inerrant.

Not so.
In fact, the Bible shows how to test if a prophesy is of the Lord or not. If not, it will not come true. We know that God is real because we have sought and experienced His presence. It cannot be explained by mass hysteria or delusion.

I love reading this from people

right after they've told me that science can't really understand anything.

Science cannot account for ORIGINS. More specifically, science cannot account for the origination of anything. Matter cannot be created but the universe is here. Abiogenesis cannot account for the origination of life and yet we are here. Adaptation is a conservative process and yet the world is replete with living things. All these things point to the Glory of God. Look carefully and you may see it.

 

[fargonic]

Verified by whom?

Countless generations of geologists. Even I myself have witnessed the rock record.

You don't have any evidence of a natural creation, therefore you have no idea of the proper sequence.

I used to like to ask my students when I was teaching geology which was in place first: the cup on the table or the table. Was the cup floating in space and a table built under it or was there a table upon which cup was placed.

(If you are savvy you recognize this as an example of the "Law of Superposition" which was formulated by Nicolas Steno. And if you are a person of faith you will recognize that name. If you recognize those things then you will see much of the early history of a literal Genesis vs observational science writ large.)

So you study rocks.

Yes. (Well to be fair I used to study rocks. I've spent most of my recent career as a chemist).

Have you created any?

Yes. Yes I have. Would like a list? Hmmm, well, how about:

1. Ice in my fridge (technically speaking water ice is a mineral when it is solid)

2. Opal in the lab (I used Stober synthesis for silica spheres which ultimately packed into a close-packed structure), I didn't, however go the further step of cementing them.

3. Concrete

You happy?

Are you good enough in gemology to tell a perfect man made carbon based diamond from a naturally formed carbon based diamond?

There are methodologies ranging from assessment of impurities (natural diamonds will have more of various impurities than a lab grown diamond). I believe there's also some differences in things like surface fluorescence.

When you see layers of rocks, do you automatically accept the explanation of your instructors as to how they formed?

You think one gets a PhD in geology just by regurgitating what an instructor told them? Most of us spend years studying these things ourselves.

If the great flood covered the mountains the water would be over 400 meters deep with a weight of over 7,300 pounds per inch. How much sediment to you figure could be crushed into sedimentary rock at those pressures?

I know enough to know that a global flood deposit would look quite different from just about anything else we've ever seen in the rock record for the following reason:

1. It would be present worldwide

2. It would not be contemporaneous with any subaerial exposure. (In other words there would be no place on earth that had a contemporary age with the flood but represented say a sand dune deposit, which is easily differentiated from fluvial deposition).

3. It would be accompanied by (everywhere on earth) a massive deposition of dead organisms. After this it would be covered by rocks that showed no life in most areas of the planet until the localized life forms on Mt. Arrarat were able to get back out across the earth.

As a good comparison of something that DOES appear to have WORLDWIDE COVERAGE in the rock record there's the K-T boundary (that point where the dinos went extinct because of the Xixilub Impact) shows an anomalously high Ir content in the rocks. It also shows that below that point many animal types go extinct and don't show up above it!

You have a time machine?

Yes, it's called the geologic record. Kind of like reading a history book.

They don't have time machines either.

They don't solve crimes by observing the past. They solve crimes by figuring out who had motive, opportunity and the weapon used.

That's not how Criminal Forensics works.

I have yet to meet one who doesn't understand that the Bible uses parables and metaphors in certain circumstances. Perhaps you could name three who do.

The key difference is: do you know of anyone who believes that Genesis is literal and not metaphorical?

Poor marketing on your part, then. Perhaps you should study Ron Popiel. He's worth about $100 million because of the way he marketed his patents.

I am part of a much bigger machine than Ron Popiel.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking your patents reside in the physical world. Notice I do no say real. I say physical. Which is more real; that which is eternal or that which is transient?

And so we begin the special pleading for God. Don't worry, you're in good company. It's basically the way Guanilo's Objection to the Ontological Argument is overcome.

You look down a railroad track and your eyes see the tracks converging. Do they?

At infinity they do for non-euclidean geometries.

If I could reach into nothingness and hand you a tomato, you might think of how the tomato plant was grown from a seed, planted in the earth, watered and cared for until it's fruit had grown. Then the tomato was picked, shipped and sent to the marketplace where I bought it and concealed it just to had it to you. All this might be true if the tomato had been grown, but since I created it from nothing

By all means, the VERY SECOND you create a tomato from nothing let me know! I'd love to see you do it again.

Everything in Genesis was formed it its mature state; from grasses with seeds in them to Adam being created a full grown man.

And then all this evidence of how things developed over millions and millions of years was put there so we'd be confused.

Who would do such a thing?

However, chirality disproves the likelihood of an random combination of amino acids to create even the simplest of life forms.

Actually that's wrong. It is actually a pretty good bit of evidence for a non-living origin to life.

Check it out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857174/

Some mineral surfaces appear to selectively adsorb specific chiralities of organic molecules which may account for life's homochirality here on earth!

Pretty cool, no?

Science cannot account for ORIGINS.

Unlike religion which simply TELLS you what the origins are. That's definitely a superior form of knowledge.

All these things point to the Glory of God. Look carefully and you may see it.

Actually no one is denying the Glory of God. Frankly if God created the earth exactly as it appears to have been made over billions of years of amazing chemistry, fascinating physics and untold amounts of processes I think it points to a VERY GRAND AND GLORIOUS THING.

When I look out at the mountains just to the east of me and see the evidence of slow an HUGELY POWERFUL PROCESSES and volcanoes I am AMAZED.

I actually feel sorry for people who look at all these giant features and amazing things and just shrug their shoulders and say "It was all made in a day, meh."

The earth is a pretty amazing place when it's not a potemkin village made by a God too simple to use real science.[/quote][/quote]

 

[[serious]]

By the way, for anyone who was wondering why I used an apple and a made up verse as an example rather than a real verse and real observances, this recent diversion is why.

I also notice AV hasn't been able to answer yet.

 

[[serious]]

[serious] is only working on the kinds of challenges that AV himself has posted for eons now. This is simply an attempt to find out the limits of AV's contention that if something contradicts the Bible it is wrong.

AV answered it reasonably enough in Challenge 1: it is not what you thought it was. Thereby saving the Bible from error.

In this one he has added the concept that God has told you it was an apple. And for an unknown reason God also said the Bible was wrong by saying the color = purple.

Unfortunately this will probably only serve to muddy the waters, but it is an admirable attempt to discuss AV's usual "challenges" and his reliance on bible infallibility.



As I understand it is NOT intended for you or others to try to formulate an answer, it is a hypothetic put only to those who start with the presumption that the Bible is infallible.



It is as honest as AV's usual challenges which populate this forum.

It's more than that, it's actually getting at a purely theological issue.

I was going to post the explanation after AV replied, but i guess i scared him away.

So heres the underlying question: Does belief in an infallible God stem from belief in the bible, or does the belief in an infallible bible stem from God? I don't think either approach is theologically troublesome, but it's a good exercise to think about why you believe what you believe. I'd suspect most people who were raised Christian would tend to believe the bible and assume what they thought was the voice of God was a demon, or insanity, or something else. I'd suspect those who came to Christianity as adults would then to trust more in God speaking to them and assume God was establishing a new Apple dispensation, or that they misunderstood the verse, or something towards that end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So far, nobody has presented me with scientific evidence that creates an impasse for this endeavor

Off course not... Since obviously you take the position that if rational evidence says X and the bible says Y.... then X is correct.

But then, instead of saying that the bible is wrong about Y... you actually turn around and say "yes, the bible seems to say Y - but it meant X instead".

Kind of a "heads I win, tails you loose" situation. So indeed, obviously, nobody has ever shown you any scientific evidence that contradicts bible passages, and nobody will ever be able to either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wrong according to whom?
How do you, who have created nothing, assert an opinion upon the order of creation?

By investigating reality with 21st century tools and methods, instead of reading bronze-age books about what people thought the nature of reality was 3000 years ago...

Science cannot observe the past.

Nore does it have to.

Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present.

For example, someone walked here:

 

[TaylorSexton]

Off course not... Since obviously you take the position that if rational evidence says X and the bible says Y.... then X is correct.

But then, instead of saying that the bible is wrong about Y... you actually turn around and say "yes, the bible seems to say Y - but it meant X instead".

Kind of a "heads I win, tails you loose" situation. So indeed, obviously, nobody has ever shown you any scientific evidence that contradicts bible passages, and nobody will ever be able to either.

No, I never said that. I said that since all truth is God's truth, I seek to, where I can, try to align my understanding of Scripture's claims with the evidence I am presented with science.

For example, when I am presented with the scientific evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system, I go back to passages like Joshua 10:13 and say, "Well, this could easily be understood as phenomenological language and not at all damage the infallibility of Scripture." I don't just say, "Science is right, so Scripture is wrong here."

Now, there are instances where it has to either be one or the other. Either the flood in Genesis happened or it didn't, for example. That's what I mean when I say that so far no one has been able to provide scientific evidence that is irreconcilable with relevant statements of Scripture.

 

[KWCrazy]

By investigating reality with 21st century tools and methods, instead of reading bronze-age books about what people thought the nature of reality was 3000 years ago...

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. You're an atheist. Atheists pretend there is no God when, in fact, God exists. That means you deny reality. You live in a make-believe world in which the only controlling authority is the immutable laws of science. Of course, since origination is impossible within the laws of science, you believe in a world that could not have been created and therefore doesn't exist. No offense, but given that, I reject your opinions of reality.

Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present.

Some, yes.
A global flood would have created fossils buried in all the sediment. What do we find? Fossils all over the world. Evidence of a flood? No, you say. Proof there was none. There's that separation from reality again.

 

[fargonic]

A global flood would have created fossils buried in all the sediment. What do we find? Fossils all over the world. Evidence of a flood? No, you say. Proof there was none. There's that separation from reality again.

Actually we find the fossils buried in a very complex way throughout a wide variety of environments. You have a cartoon and grossly oversimplified view of fossils.

We find fossils buried in sediment and then layers of rock that indicate it was laid down by winds (ie NOT underwater). Then above that we have more fossils buried in sediment.

You surely aren't suggesting that there were MANY global floods are you? Because in Genesis God makes a promise to people.

But more importantly you NEVER find a rabbit fossil with a trilobite fossil. You NEVER find a lion fossil buried with a dinosaur fossil. You NEVER find.... the list goes on. It shows a change of life forms over time.

This doesn't even begin to touch on questions like varves or other rocks that take a long time to form and show deep time.

Please don't oversimplify a topic you clearly have no experience in. I would highly recommend taking an intro geology class. At least at that time you wouldn't be insulting those who actually understand this topic.

 

[[serious]]

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. You're an atheist. Atheists pretend there is no God when, in fact, God exists. That means you deny reality. You live in a make-believe world in which the only controlling authority is the immutable laws of science. Of course, since origination is impossible within the laws of science, you believe in a world that could not have been created and therefore doesn't exist. No offense, but given that, I reject your opinions of reality.

Some, yes.
A global flood would have created fossils buried in all the sediment. What do we find? Fossils all over the world. Evidence of a flood? No, you say. Proof there was none. There's that separation from reality again.

Does the pattern and type of fossils match what we would expect from a flood? How would a flood sort fossils? How would evolution sort fossils? Which one do we observe?

 

[KWCrazy]

Even I myself have witnessed the rock record.

Hard rock, classic rock or soft rock?
I haven't witnessed the rock record in years, but I'm familiar with the CD's.

I used to like to ask my students when I was teaching geology which was in place first: the cup on the table or the table.

I bet they had a lot of fun with that one.

(If you are savvy you recognize this as an example of the "Law of Superposition" which was formulated by Nicolas Steno.

In all deference to Newton, such a supposition reject basic fundamentals of gravity. Cups do not float.

If you recognize those things then you will see much of the early history of a literal Genesis vs observational science writ large.)

Genesis is not a science book.

Yes. Yes I have. Would like a list? Hmmm, well, how about:
1. Ice in my fridge (technically speaking water ice is a mineral when it is solid)

The chemical composition of ice is H20. changing a state from liquid to solid does not change it's composition into rock.

]2. Opal in the lab (I used Stober synthesis for silica spheres which ultimately packed into a close-packed structure), I didn't, however go the further step of cementing them.

Creating, as God creates, begins with no ingredients. Creating rocks would entail saying "Let there be rocks" and having them form before your eyes from nothing. You manipulated ingredients.

3. Concrete

Same as above.

]You happy?

Yes. You never created anything from nothingness. Thus, you don't have a legitimate opinion on creation.

There are methodologies ranging from assessment of impurities (natural diamonds will have more of various impurities than a lab grown diamond). I believe there's also some differences in things like surface fluorescence.

Other than imperfections, which can be included in diamonds, there is no difference between man made diamonds and natural diamonds other than time. In diamonds, time and pressure can easily replicate millions of years. Funny, isn't it? It leads one to wonder if diamonds take millions of years to form after all.

You think one gets a PhD in geology just by regurgitating what an instructor told them? Most of us spend years studying these things ourselves.

I believe one will not get a PhD in geology if he basis his thesis on the effect of water pressure from the great flood on geological formation.

1. It would be present worldwide

Not only are fossils found worldwide, but the flood story permeates nearly every culture.

2. It would not be contemporaneous with any subaerial exposure. (In other words there would be no place on earth that had a contemporary age with the flood but represented say a sand dune deposit, which is easily differentiated from fluvial deposition).

The problem with that is that you guys keep changing the dates on everything to fit with your given world view.

3. It would be accompanied by (everywhere on earth) a massive deposition of dead organisms.

Other than fossils, there are a lot of predators which live in the water which would have feasted on the dead. They had a year to eat and devour before the waters began to recede.

Yes, it's called the geologic record. Kind of like reading a history book.

Not really.
Books are written by their author. Usually their meaning is pretty clear. They use commonly known words. Reading rocks is a little different. You begin by rejecting what the Creator said and write your own story.

The key difference is: do you know of anyone who believes that Genesis is literal and not metaphorical?

Yes, many people, including my pastor.
In fact, I can't think of anyone who denies that Genesis is intended to teach people that God created the world in six days; that man was created on the sixth day; that man walked in harmony with God until sin brought death and disorder into the world unless they reject what is very clearly written. Unfortunately, many people intentionally reject the clearly written text of the Bible in favor of the lie of evolution and and ancient, evolved earth.

I am part of a much bigger machine than Ron Popiel.

Good for you. Hope you make as much as he has.

At infinity they do for non-euclidean geometries.

Infinity is never reached. It is not a place or a destination. It is a concept rather foreign to the finite mind of man.

By all means, the VERY SECOND you create a tomato from nothing let me know!

I'm not God. Only God creates from nothing.

And then all this evidence of how things developed over millions and millions of years was put there so we'd be confused.

Let me get this clear in my mind.
God created the world and everything in it.
He recorded exactly how He did it and gave that record to man through His holy book.
You reject that book, say it looks old to you and call HIM the deceiver???
Don't take it personal, though. I've heard that exact argument hundreds of times already. Nothing new.

Some mineral surfaces appear to selectively adsorb specific chiralities of organic molecules which may account for life's homochirality here on earth!
Pretty cool, no?

My guess; before the end science will come up with a possible alternative to God's creation of life and many if not most will be deceived.
It will be believable, just not the truth.

Actually no one is denying the Glory of God.

No, you just deny His Holy book and tell people that Genesis is 100% false. If God had created the world over billions of years it still would have been incredible. However, had He done so He would have told us. The story of man's creation, the fall of man, the destruction of the world through the great flood and the promise of everlasting life are so interwoven that if one part is a lie it's all a lie. That's why it's so important for Satan to convince people that part of it is a lie. It fits perfectly with his plan to deceive the world.

 

[[serious]]

Hard rock, classic rock or soft rock?
I haven't witnessed the rock record in years, but I'm familiar with the CD's.

I bet they had a lot of fun with that one.

In all deference to Newton, such a supposition reject basic fundamentals of gravity. Cups do not float.


Genesis is not a science book.

The chemical composition of ice is H20. changing a state from liquid to solid does not change it's composition into rock.

Creating, as God creates, begins with no ingredients. Creating rocks would entail saying "Let there be rocks" and having them form before your eyes from nothing. You manipulated ingredients.

Same as above.

Yes. You never created anything from nothingness. Thus, you don't have a legitimate opinion on creation.

Other than imperfections, which can be included in diamonds, there is no difference between man made diamonds and natural diamonds other than time. In diamonds, time and pressure can easily replicate millions of years. Funny, isn't it? It leads one to wonder if diamonds take millions of years to form after all.

I believe one will not get a PhD in geology if he basis his thesis on the effect of water pressure from the great flood on geological formation.

Not only are fossils found worldwide, but the flood story permeates nearly every culture.

The problem with that is that you guys keep changing the dates on everything to fit with your given world view.

Other than fossils, there are a lot of predators which live in the water which would have feasted on the dead. They had a year to eat and devour before the waters began to recede.

Not really.
Books are written by their author. Usually their meaning is pretty clear. They use commonly known words. Reading rocks is a little different. You begin by rejecting what the Creator said and write your own story.

Yes, many people, including my pastor.
In fact, I can't think of anyone who denies that Genesis is intended to teach people that God created the world in six days; that man was created on the sixth day; that man walked in harmony with God until sin brought death and disorder into the world unless they reject what is very clearly written. Unfortunately, many people intentionally reject the clearly written text of the Bible in favor of the lie of evolution and and ancient, evolved earth.

Good for you. Hope you make as much as he has.

Infinity is never reached. It is not a place or a destination. It is a concept rather foreign to the finite mind of man.

I'm not God. Only God creates from nothing.

Let me get this clear in my mind.
God created the world and everything in it.
He recorded exactly how He did it and gave that record to man through His holy book.
You reject that book, say it looks old to you and call HIM the deceiver???
Don't take it personal, though. I've heard that exact argument hundreds of times already. Nothing new.

My guess; before the end science will come up with a possible alternative to God's creation of life and many if not most will be deceived.
It will be believable, just not the truth.

No, you just deny His Holy book and tell people that Genesis is 100% false. If God had created the world over billions of years it still would have been incredible. However, had He done so He would have told us. The story of man's creation, the fall of man, the destruction of the world through the great flood and the promise of everlasting life are so interwoven that if one part is a lie it's all a lie. That's why it's so important for Satan to convince people that part of it is a lie. It fits perfectly with his plan to deceive the world.

I don't see your answer to the Op. In such a hypothetical, what would you think?

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't see your answer to the Op. In such a hypothetical, what would you think?

The same.
If apples are red, the Bible wouldn't say they were blue.
It may describe a blue fruit you think is an apple, only that it's a blueberry.
When God returns He won't be lying about the color of apples. He will return to judge the living and the dead. For some it will be a glorious day. For others it will be a horrific realization that their rejection of the Lord has led to their eternal damnation.

 

[fargonic]

I bet they had a lot of fun with that one.

You are familiar with Steno, right? I mean you do at least that little geology and religion, right?

Genesis is not a science book.

Agreed!

The chemical composition of ice is H20. changing a state from liquid to solid does not change it's composition into rock.

Oh my. You are so mistaken. Rocks are made up of minerals. The classic definition of a mineral (check out a mineralogy textbook) is that it be:

1. Inorganic
2. Solid
3. Naturally occurring
4. Of definite chemical structure.

WATER is not a "solid" so isn't a mineral. Ice IS a solid ergo is a mineral as it meets all defintions.

(Don't try to argue geology and mineralogy with a PhD geologist!)

Other than imperfections, which can be included in diamonds, there is no difference between man made diamonds and natural diamonds other than time.

You really shouldn't talk about things you don't know much about so authoritatively.

http://www.gia.edu/identifying-lab-grown-diamonds

I believe one will not get a PhD in geology if he basis his thesis on the effect of water pressure from the great flood on geological formation.

Probably because the science won't work that way. You've shown a couple of times now in this post alone that you don't know much about any of the earth sciences, so you can be forgiven for not knowing that results correspond to the data, not the other way 'round.

Not only are fossils found worldwide, but the flood story permeates nearly every culture.

Here's a challenge for you:

When you look at a coal measure you see a bunch of black lines. Those are coal seams. Now in many cases each of those seams represents land plants or at least swampy or boggy areas. Between them are sediments placed there by water innundating the coal swamp or peat bog. Here's an example of a random coal measure (I'm not digging into the type of coal but it's good illustration):

I count something like 20+ GLOBAL FLOODS there. Which one was the Noah Flood? Remember these sorts of measures happen all over the world and involve dramatically different timings. A global flood would be contemporaneous all across the globe.

Please point to the Flood of Noah (hint: it will have to be the last one because God promised not to destroy the earth by flood). But why aren't the previous 19+ listed in the Bible? Seems pretty important.

Other than fossils, there are a lot of predators which live in the water which would have feasted on the dead. They had a year to eat and devour before the waters began to recede.

So they only ate the rabbit bones where there were Trilobite skeletons but they didn't touch the rabbit bones in places where there weren't trilobites?

Let me get this clear in my mind.
God created the world and everything in it.
He recorded exactly how He did it and gave that record to man through His holy book.
You reject that book, say it looks old to you and call HIM the deceiver???

By your claims God created this:

What you see here is a ROCK (Limestone) that was formed and it's REALLY THICK. That stuff doesn't for in like a few minutes. It has many layers indicating it formed in many many instances all stacked. THEN IT WAS TILTED (again, not a fast thing in the regular world). THEN THE UPPER PORTIONS WERE WORN AWAY FLAT and the Triassic breccia was laid down on top of it.

The cooler bit is that a breccia is made up of chunks of OTHER ROCKS.

So God created this in a day but by every possible interpretation it could not have been formed in that short of a time.

Why would God feel the need to make items that LOOK at EVERY LEVEL to be VERY OLD and take a LONG TIME but they aren't?

Don't take it personal, though. I've heard that exact argument hundreds of times already. Nothing new.

And I'm willing to bet in all your arguments you never once bothered to take a single intro geology class. Not once.

Admit it: have you ever read a geology textbook that wasn't written by a creationist organizatin?

No, you just deny His Holy book and tell people that Genesis is 100% false.

LOGIC ERROR: I said only that the creation story was metaphorical. I believe a great deal of other things in Genesis are metaphorical or incorrect (people living to 900 years for instance). But I never said 100% false.

Please do not make up things and claim I said them.

If God had created the world over billions of years it still would have been incredible. However, had He done so He would have told us.

Looks to me like He did.

The story of man's creation, the fall of man, the destruction of the world through the great flood and the promise of everlasting life are so interwoven that if one part is a lie it's all a lie. That's why it's so important for Satan to convince people that part of it is a lie. It fits perfectly with his plan to deceive the world.

Are you enjoying that computer you typed that on? Yeah, a lot of the important metals in that computer were dug outta the ground by geologists. And they used "old earth" and "Deep Time" concepts to find that metal and figure out where to mine it from.

 

[fargonic]

For some it will be a glorious day. For others it will be a horrific realization that their rejection of the Lord has led to their eternal damnation.

Some in the first group will be enjoying the fate of the second grouph a bit too much, methinks. Such is the reward of piety I suppose.

 

[Jimmy D]

The story of man's creation, the fall of man, the destruction of the world through the great flood and the promise of everlasting life are so interwoven that if one part is a lie it's all a lie. That's why it's so important for Satan to convince people that part of it is a lie. It fits perfectly with his plan to deceive the world.

Where did anyone suggest a lie? Do you understand what mytholgy is? or allegory?

If anything satan is rubbing his hands and laughing as bible idolaters drive people away from christianity with all this young earth nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same.
If apples are red, the Bible wouldn't say they were blue.
It may describe a blue fruit you think is an apple, only that it's a blueberry.
When God returns He won't be lying about the color of apples. He will return to judge the living and the dead. For some it will be a glorious day. For others it will be a horrific realization that their rejection of the Lord has led to their eternal damnation.

You seemed to have missed the point. Believing in a literal Genesis demands that one believe in a God that lies. Perhaps the Bible, a work of man, is not "God saying". Even in Christian belief man is imperfect. How is imperfect man supposed to get "God's Word" right?

The Bible never claims to be the "word of God". That is merely an interpretation by some Christians. And they are of course as flawed as all other men.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are familiar with Steno, right? I mean you do at least that little geology and religion, right?

I know who Steno is.

WATER is not a "solid" so isn't a mineral. Ice IS a solid ergo is a mineral as it meets all defintions.

True or false? The chemical composition of water does not change if you lower the temperature below the freezing point.

(Don't try to argue geology and mineralogy with a PhD geologist!)

This is chemistry.

You really shouldn't talk about things you don't know much about so authoritatively.

Your own link states that most gemologists have a hard time separating natural from organic diamonds. The composition and hardness are the same. Organic diamonds, done right, are jewel quality and have to be analyzed by a lab to tell the difference.

Probably because the science won't work that way.

Shouldn't, but does.
Case in point, the scientific community looks down of creation scientists because they look at data differently and come to completely different interpretations. Try posting a thesis which conforms to creation, as I suggested, and not only will it not get published it will be attacked by anyone who reads it. In its pure form, science welcomes disagreement and anything which challenges conventional wisdom. There is no pure form. Science is a big industry, dependent on grants from government and special interest groups.

I count something like 20+ GLOBAL FLOODS there.

I see shifting sediment, which one would expect to find under a flood, moving around and getting crushed into the earth under millions of tons of pressure. Again, we ask ourselves, where do the effects of time and pressure converge? More importantly, why? Coal and oil are natural fuel sources which we needed at just about the same time we discovered them. The Lord takes care of His people; even those who doubt him.

By your claims God created this:

God's word, not mine.

So God created this in a day

but by every possible interpretation it could not have been formed in that short of a time.

Not EVERY possible explanation.
Limestone had a year to form under water.
As for the tilt, yes, there was a lot of upheaval. The world was destroyed and re-formed.
The continents were ripped apart. The oceans broke deep. Everything that breathed air and wasn't on the ark died.

Why would God feel the need to make items that LOOK at EVERY LEVEL to be VERY OLD and take a LONG TIME but they aren't?

God told us exactly how He created the world. it wasn't supposed to follow the laws of science. The creation intentionally broke those laws.

And I'm willing to bet in all your arguments you never once bothered to take a single intro geology class.

Not my thing.
I'll leave you to study the rocks. I answered the OP, which put forth a premise by which the Bible stated something easily challengeable and then God came down and said something completely different.
I don't need geology to tell me a six day creation is impossible. I knew that when I was in kindergarten.
I also learned, though later on, that impossible only means impossible for man. Nothing is impossible for God.
Geology can tell us amazing things about the world we live in. I leave it to the Bible to tell us how it was created. You see, unlike you, I don't natural law is the dominant law of the universe. I believe that God's will is the dominant law of the universe. I also believe that if He wanted to reverse the rotation of the earth he could do so without spilling a singel grain of sand.

I said only that the creation story was metaphorical.

Please point to the metaphor in Genesis.
The entire book is written in a very straightforward fashion. They days are described three ways to assure we know that each is a single solar day.
The order of creation defies any explanation other than a miracle from God.
All things mentioned are created in their mature form. From its beginning, the world was created perfectly.
There was no death prior to the fall of man. Adam's sin brought death and sin into the world. Eventually the world would become so corrupt that God would destroy it.
There is no compromise in truth. Either it's 100% true or it's 100% false. Either God made the world in six days or He didn't. Either the great flood destroyed nearly all life on the planet or it didn't. Either the wages of sin are death or they aren't. Either man needs a savior or he doesn't. Either the son of God bore the sins of the world so that we could be saved or he didn't. Either you accept the word or you reject it.

Looks to me like He did.

Chapter and verse, please.

Are you enjoying that computer you typed that on?

Oh, the third grade argument again. I haven't seen that one in days.
Please tell me how the computer evolved on it's own without involving external intelligence.

 

[KWCrazy]

Some in the first group will be enjoying the fate of the second grouph a bit too much, methinks. Such is the reward of piety I suppose.

I rather suppose they won't have time to think about the second group.

 

[KWCrazy]

Where did anyone suggest a lie? Do you understand what mytholgy is? or allegory?

Yes, and false teaching, lying and denying the Gospel, as well.

If anything satan is rubbing his hands and laughing as bible idolaters drive people away from christianity with all this young earth nonsense.

I believe Christ was a young earth creationist. He quoted from Genesis extensively. He mentioned Noah by name. He went so far as to say that if you didn't believe Moses you would not believe Him either.

No thanks, I won't take suggestions on theology from atheists. Not my style.