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.
No vertebrates before the Cambrian era, that's what I'm saying
I do find it good that the story of the flood is used quite frequently in juxtaposition to the judgment of Christ. Doesnt really tell us whether the Apostles thought it was a literal narrative
How can you possibly not realize that "serious scientific publications" aren't about to disclose the problems with the status quo?
I know!
That is correct.
You see, THIS is where you go wrong (well, one of the places). You think that because something fits your assertions, it is evidence for a global flood and BOOM you win.
well you are a good sport for putting up w me!
But you haven't 'explained' the origin of the reef complex, all you've done is say 'aha, it is shallow water, and there was shallow water before the flood! EVIDENCE!!' Meanwhile, modern geology explains the origins of the reef itself (you haven't), documents and explains the evolution of organisms composing the reef (you haven't), explains the morphology of the reef and associated sediments (you haven't), provides petrographc and geochemical constraints on the diagenetic history of the reef (you haven't), explains why the reef complex died, giving SPECIFIC PROCESSES leading to its demise (you haven't) explains why the reef was preserved (you haven't), explains why the reef was exhumed (you haven't), when it was exhumed (you haven't), and why caves have developed in it since it was exhumed (you haven't).
.
Modern geology does all of this, but you just say 'oceans were shallow before the flood, then the flood happened'. But even ignoring all of the above, your 'shallow preflood seas' assertion falls flat on its face, because the reef complex is directly associated with penecontemporaneous deep-basin highstand turbidite fans (SOURCE).
.
.
So no, none of this is evidence for your flood. And even if it were, you would have to explain both the preflood geologic processes necessary for deposition of the Capitan Reef Complex AND the synflood processes necessary for preservation and exposure of the complex. Also, since the reef complex is Permian, that would mean that everything Permian and older is preflood deposits, which pretty much shoots your 'Precambrian/cambrian boundary is the base of the flood' hypothesis right in the foot.
.
5-10 degree dip-- it's a range, just like the other dips cited in the abstract. Context, my dear. And no, the sediment was not sourced after the reef finished developing, the sediment was sourced during the several sea level highstands that took place while the reef complex developed, which is why the turbidites interfinger with the forereef facies, which also formed during reef development, which is why the reef facies actually prograde over the basinal facies rather than simply abut them, as your model would require.
you're right - it doesn't
but it does say the people are willingly ignorant of the truth of the flood
Josephus said the people of his day had already forgotten that people used to live to be almost a thousand years old and thought the idea was crazy - so he believed they did live to be that old just as the Bible says
how much more have we forgotten at this later date? .........too much
well said
I am very close to literally banging my head on the desk.
Do you think science is some great conspiracy? Do you have any idea how science works? It's all about challenging new ideas, if you have evidence, and bringing new theories to advance our understanding.
You've published a lot of scientific papers, then?
I am very close to literally banging my head on the desk.
Do you think science is some great conspiracy? Do you have any idea how science works? It's all about challenging new ideas, if you have evidence, and bringing new theories to advance our understanding.
Modern science knows perfectly well that there is a lot we don't understand. If we did understand it all, none of us would have a job. We also recognize that there are some things that we do understand, however.no - but unlike modern science I admit there is a lot I do not know or understand
Modern science knows perfectly well that there is a lot we don't understand. If we did understand it all, none of us would have a job. We also recognize that there are some things that we do understand, however.
the supposed long list of ''evolved'' organisms and evolutionary trees showing how organisms are all inter-related which is the subject of this thread is not a body of knowledge beyond dispute
- they may not have evolved at all yet it's taught as fact to small children giving them no alternatives - what if it's incorrect?
just because we cannot explain all the ways of The Almighty such as all the details of how the creation events took place does not exclude us from being created beings
modern science sometimes has itself confused with The Almighty Creator
There are, compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists (of all religious persuasions) in the world, a handful of young earth creationist scientists. The creationist journal articles I've seen in my field (genetics) have been truly dreadful: poorly reasoned, factually incorrect and filled with evasion and ad hoc arguments. The only exceptions I can think of are articles by Todd Wood, who's trying to bring some rigor to creationism -- but who ends up spending lots of him time criticizing the arguments of other creationists.there are enough creation science journals out there now full of research articles to show there are plenty of scientists who do not agree with what old-earthers and evolutionists are convinced is beyond dispute
True, but the scientific disputes are over exactly what the relationships are, not over whether there are relationships in the first place. One scientist may think that A is B's sister while another thinks A is B's cousin, but they both agree that one way or another A is related to B.
Of course not. Why would you raise such an irrelevant issue?
.
There are, compared to the hundreds of thousands of scientists (of all religious persuasions) in the world, a handful of young earth creationist scientists. The creationist journal articles I've seen in my field (genetics) have been truly dreadful: poorly reasoned, factually incorrect and filled with evasion and ad hoc arguments. The only exceptions I can think of are articles by Todd Wood, who's trying to bring some rigor to creationism -- but who ends up spending lots of him time criticizing the arguments of other creationists.
(And of course it's not beyond dispute -- absolutely anything can be disputed.)
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?