The order of fossils in the geological column

[Atheos canadensis]

That would be like asking him to admit he's wrong, he can't do that, he's 74, he's got too much invested to change now,
all he can do is hope for the best, it won't make any difference when he's dead anyway so good luck to him.
What does it matter if he believes nonsense? who can he hurt? tell him the flood happened and that he's been right all along.

I hadn't taken that into consideration. I guess if he's found something he has convinced himself makes sense, he's unlikely at this stage to abandon it in the face of mere facts. But I wish he could at least be honest about it. AV just comes right out and says it. Sure, almost everything he posts is absurdly wrong or irrelevant, but at least he's honest about ignoring the evidence.

 

[Queller]

In fast rushing water that contained lots of material yes, but a slow moving flood would deposit its sediments rather quickly, and the bodies wouldn't sink until some time later and would rest on or near the surface, to decompose rather quickly.

Sorry, no. That isn't how it works. The tides don't deposit a lot of sediment ever time they come in and out.

And tilting continents being pushed down by water would not be gentle.

 

[Queller]

In ask an astrophysicist thread, the guy just did exactly that. You think he is a closet creo?

Link?

No. They assume present rates. Any looking they do also does the same..assume a present state first and always and only. No wiggling out of it, so called science is religion.

Wrong again. Scientists did NOT assume present rates. That is false and will be false every time you say it. Early scientists LOOKED for evidence that things were not always the same and found none.

Right, they simply believe physics was the same! Thanks for that.

Are you really going to sit there and bald-faced lie about what I said? I specifically said they did NOT simply believe the physics was the same. How do you get "the simply believe the physics was the same" out of my statement of just the opposite?

I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares?

You obviously do or you wouldn't have spent years trying to convince people of this "different state past" hypothesis of yours. For which, BTW, you have NEVER presented any evidence.

Again, I say phooey on what they believe. Who cares? They either know, or any godless blather they spout must be treated like poison.

So uncertainty is poison? Let me guess, you think mistakes are the same as lies too, right?

 

[Queller]

My model is supported by the story and vice versa, that no one except the eight survived. I cannot address suppositions that contradict the story, only those that support it.

Unfortunately your model is not supported by the evidence.

 

[Queller]

Therefore God must have restored new life on the earth after the flood, as he did in the restoration of Gen 1.

What restoration in Genesis 1?

 

[Queller]

This article attacks the YEC model and is in general agreement with me (I believe in GAP theory). Noah's flood was inconsequential in regard to the earth's geology.

That article doesn't agree with your flood model at all. They argue that the Flood was not global in scope which is completely at odds with your model.

 

[Queller]

The first 'evidence' is the story itself (bible scholars generally agree that it is presented as an actual event). There are no human survivors save the those on the ark. You are speculating outside of the bounds of the story. All of my speculations are safely within the bounds of the story.

And yet you keep claiming that some of the story may be taken as "poetic language". How do you determine what is poetic language in the story and what is not? Please tell me it isn't determined just by which parts support your hypothesis.

 

[Queller]

A million year old flood will leave more evidence than a one year flood will.

That makes no sense at all. A flood a million years ago that lasted a couple of weeks would leave far less evidence that a global Flood 4500 years ago that lasted a year.

 

[Armoured]

That would be like asking him to admit he's wrong, he can't do that, he's 74, he's got too much invested to change now,
all he can do is hope for the best, it won't make any difference when he's dead anyway so good luck to him.
What does it matter if he believes nonsense? who can he hurt? tell him the flood happened and that he's been right all along.

If it were the case that those who believe this nonsense were happy to keep their misconceptions to themselves, I don’t think many people would take issue with it. However, it's just not so. These people vote. They themselves are influential on young people in churches and families. They determine agendas, funding and syllabi. Politicians and educators pander to their beliefs to keep them onside. They perpetuate a mistrust of education in general. AV's mantra seems harmless enough taken at face value, but what sort of doctors, engineers or teachers will come from that environment?

 

[Armoured]

Are the world's problems going to be solved by someone who's parents raised them to respond "science can take a hike" any time they encounter inconvenient evidence?

 

[dad]

Link?

The post was 147..


" The mass of the originating body can be computed from the angular momentum of the moon. Finally, the tidal interaction between the Earth and the moon means that the are moving apart from each other. Turn the clock backwards and in the past they must have been much closer. I once did a back of the envelope calculation where I assumed a constant rate of angular momentum transfer between the two, and the answer that came out is that the moon would have been very close to Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Add the fact that for some time now, computer simulations with these parameters do produce moons like the one we have, I think he evidence is pretty strong that that's what happened."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7818967-15/

Wrong again. Scientists did NOT assume present rates. That is false and will be false every time you say it. Early scientists LOOKED for evidence that things were not always the same and found none.

False. Of course they do.


Another example of how present rates are used to travel through time...

"
The biological and geological future of the Earth can be extrapolated based upon the estimated effects of several long-term influences. These include the chemistry at the Earth's surface, the rate of cooling of the planet's interior, the gravitational interactions with other objects in the Solar System, and a steady increase in the Sun's luminosity. .......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth#cite_note-geo2_3_113-9
Over time intervals of hundreds of millions of years, random celestial events pose a global risk to the biosphere, which can result in mass extinctions. These include impacts by comets or asteroids with diameters of 5–10 km (3.1–6.2 mi) or more, and the possibility of a massive stellar explosion, called a supernova, within a 100-light-year radius from the Sun, called a Near-Earth supernova. Other large-scale geological events are more predictable. If the long-term effects of global warming are disregarded, Milankovitch theory predicts that the planet will continue to undergo glacial periods at least until the quaternary glaciation comes to an end. These periods are caused by eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit.[10] As part of the ongoing supercontinent cycle, plate tectonics will probably result in a supercontinent in 250–350 million years. Some time in the next 1.5–4.5 billion years, the axial tilt of the Earth may begin to undergo chaotic variations, with changes in the axial tilt of up to 90°.
During the next four billion years, the luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This will cause a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years, the level of CO

2​

will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method, allowing them to persist at CO

2​

concentrations as low as 10 parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life, since plants are the base of the food chain on Earth."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

On and on it goes.

I specifically said they did NOT simply believe the physics was the same. How do you get "the simply believe the physics was the same" out of my statement of just the opposite?

So the laws were not the same, you claim? Try to be clear...not that anyone cares, because the issue is what science CLAIMS!!

So uncertainty is poison?

Lying about God's creation is poison, which makes the bald faced religious prophesies of so called science foul waters also. Deadly.

 

[dad]

Are the world's problems going to be solved by someone who's parents raised them to respond "science can take a hike" any time they encounter inconvenient evidence?

They aren't going to be solved. Get over it. Man will never save himself. The planet is doomed. You may save a tree and a whale, but science also enables killing hundreds of millions of babies per decade. They may reduce emissions in some hotty tot countries, but we also have Russia and other countries practicing with their nukes for the inevitable.

Those who know our salvation will only come from God on High, and relegate man's wisdom to it's little sinners place are doing well indeed.

But I guess I don't have to tell those with a christian icon this...?

 

[Dusty Bin]

They aren't going to be solved. Get over it. Man will never save himself. The planet is doomed. You may save a tree and a whale, but science also enables killing hundreds of millions of babies per decade. They may reduce emissions in some hotty tot countries, but we also have Russia and other countries practicing with their nukes for the inevitable.

Those who know our salvation will only come from God on High, and relegate man's wisdom to it's little sinners place are doing well indeed.

But I guess I don't have to tell those with a christian icon this...?

When you put it like that God would seem to be the only answer, where is he? have you seen him around lately?
have you ever seen him around? has anyone?

 

[Armoured]

When you put it like that God would seem to be the only answer, where is he? have you seen him around lately?
have you ever seen him around? has anyone?

I can't adequately convey just how disturbing I, as a Christian, find it when other Christians engage in this kind of "we're all doomed anyway, why fight it?" style of, for want of a better word, "logic".

Two points... 1. Yes, I believe in Christ's second coming and the Biblically foretold end of the World. I do. However, I'm also a father, and one day, hopefully, a grand father. So while I believe that, yes, eventually, God is going to come and set all to rights, I don't care to guess how many generations between now and then, and I certainly don't care to doom our descendants to an existence of misery and lack because we lacked the will or wisdom to prevent it.

2. Stewardship.

 

[Dusty Bin]

Yes, I believe in Christ's second coming and the Biblically foretold end of the World.

Please don't be offended just because I asked, but why on earth would you believe something like that?

 

[Armoured]

Please don't be offended just because I asked, but why on earth would you believe something like that?

It's a basic tenet of the faith that all Creed observant Christians believe.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please don't be offended just because I asked, but why on earth would you believe something like that?

Why do atheists like us believe gods don't exist even though technically there isn't much evidence against the existence of gods in general? Sure, specific gods to some religions of the past and present have significant enough issues in their concepts to be questionable to say the least, but as far as gods in general that doesn't apply. While obviously the reasoning behind it is going to be different, to claim no gods exist without any evidence is just as blatantly flawed as claiming they do without any evidence. It just so happens that people who claim gods do exist tend to get into specifics that make their claims more prone to having flaws.

 

[szechuan]

Why do atheists like us believe gods don't exist even though technically there isn't much evidence against the existence of gods in general? Sure, specific gods to some religions of the past and present have significant enough issues in their concepts to be questionable to say the least, but as far as gods in general that doesn't apply. While obviously the reasoning behind it is going to be different, to claim no gods exist without any evidence is just as blatantly flawed as claiming they do without any evidence. It just so happens that people who claim gods do exist tend to get into specifics that make their claims more prone to having flaws.

Not really, it's because we have no evidence of a god we can clearly say as of now, there is no god.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not really, it's because we have no evidence of a god we can clearly say as of now, there is no god.

Some people would say the evidence is in the world around us, but anyways aren't you agnostic? My statement shouldn't have been an issue to you...

 

[Dusty Bin]

Please don't be offended just because I asked, but why on earth would you believe something like that?

It's a basic tenet of the faith that all Creed observant Christians believe.

I know what it is I ask why on earth you would believe it.