If God doesn't exist...

[Mudda]

...

By the way: What shows this picture? What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.

You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.

The USA sold the East of Europe to the Stalinists. That's the negative side of the american pragmatism. For the grandparents of the artist Jamala as well the Germans and Russians and Americans too were a curse. I find it very interesting that Jamala wan the ESC with the song "1944". And I find it very interesting that a Nazi like you attacks me and deletes her message. You accept with your own structural Nazism that the USA wan a war against Germany but lost this war against the Nazis. I don't know what your parents and grandparents would say to you.

Russia took half of your pathetic country by force. After all you douche nazis burned half of theirs. How you can support nazis is beyond me. just shut the fuck up and go away, you disgust me.

 

[Mudda]

...

Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.

the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...

What about to bring them all into concentration gulags in guantanamo and to kill this inhuman bastards like insects with gas - so they are not able to become Nazis, which could kill you? Or what about to build a hospital for hundreds of millions english speaking people, because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?

What are your rules? The most simple letter "I" ... except your remote controllers decide something else with their own "I"? Lots of great humanists on Earth were Jews and Christians. I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.

You don't even make any sense, "because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?"
You should seek some help with your mental delusions.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

By the way: What shows this picture? What is the bad deed you see on this picture? Who are this people and what had happended there? What do you think is important in this context? Your proudness that your nation was a winner of world war 1+2 makes not any evil deed better what had happened during this time and afterwards and what's happening now in the world.

You fucking krauts deserved to get your ass kicked.

The USA sold the East of Europe to the Stalinists. That's the negative side of the american pragmatism. For the grandparents of the artist Jamala as well the Germans and Russians and Americans too were a curse. I find it very interesting that Jamala wan the ESC with the song "1944". And I find it very interesting that a Nazi like you attacks me and deletes her message. You accept with your own structural Nazism that the USA wan a war against Germany but lost this war against the Nazis. I don't know what your parents and grandparents would say to you.

Russia took half of your pathetic country by force. After all you douche nazis burned half of theirs. How you can support nazis is beyond me. just shut the fuck up and go away, you disgust me.

Russians and Germans don't hate each other and the East of Europe loves the USA and their promise "freedom." Nevertheless the USA gave in world war 2 the East of Europe and a big part of Germany to Stalin. And for the grandparents of the artist Jamala (and other human beings under the influence of Stalin) meant Stalin persecution, displacement and death. If you like to think about or not changes nothing in such problems, Nazi.

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Because Hitler tried to erase all Jews biologically from this panet you try now to erase all Christians spiritually from this planet? ... Whatever.

the jews, islamist and christians are peas in the same pod, without religion and are a threat to humanity. ...

What about to bring them all into concentration gulags in guantanamo and to kill this inhuman bastards like insects with gas - so they are not able to become Nazis, which could kill you? Or what about to build a hospital for hundreds of millions english speaking people, because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?

What are your rules? The most simple letter "I" ... except your remote controllers decide something else with their own "I"? Lots of great humanists on Earth were Jews and Christians. I'm not even sure wether real humanism could become real without the belief in god - although not everyone is able to believe in god.



Va, pensiero, sull’ali dorate;
va, ti posa sui clivi, sui colli,
ove olezzano tepide e molli
l’aure dolci del suolo natal!

Del Giordano le rive saluta,
di Sionne le torri atterrate…
O mia patria sì bella e perduta!
O membranza sì cara e fatal!

Arpa d’or dei fatidici vati,
perché muta dal salice pendi?
Le memorie nel petto riaccendi,
ci favella del tempo che fu!

O simile di Solima ai fati
traggi un suono di crudo lamento,
o t’ispiri il Signore un concento
che ne infonda al patire virtù

You don't even make any sense, "because they are the most insane mad world within this totally mad world of hundreds of most insane nations?"
You should seek some help with your mental delusions.

no comment, Nazi

 

[james bond]

1. What unsubstantiated claim? The naked eye can see about 3000 stars. That's a fact.

Some Big Questions about Stars Seen in the Night Sky

2. Prove the mere existence of a supernova means that the universe > 6,000 years???
3. Very little in the ToE that has been proven, i.e. backed by science. Like I said, science was started by people who believed in God to show how great He is.
4. We'll have to wait for the evidence from ancient remains. This one we should be able to get an answer to unlike the age of the earth.
5. Is this from evolutionary thought? Then it's so wrong. Have to run. Will explain later.

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

 

[Mudda]

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

Science does not back up the bible. Anyone who thinks that needs to go find a clue.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.

Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.

bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....

The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton

ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....


* B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.

.

 

[james bond]

.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.

Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.

bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....

The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton

ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....


* B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.

.

Why would Christians be that way like the atheists? Look at the atheist scientists. They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works. The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub. They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory. They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses. What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what! Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.

 

[forkup]

I'll just answer point 2: How Quickly Does a Supernova Happen? - Universe Today
This is how we understand supernova's. It takes a couple of million years to happen minimaly. The fact that we see it means the earth is at least that old. Like I said before I don't need to prove the earth is billions of years old, altough it surely is. I just need to prove it's older then 6000 years old.

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

 

[hobelim]

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Facts schmacts. Its all a trick of the devil I tell ya.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.

Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.

bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....

The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton

ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....


* B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.

.

Why would Christians be that way like the atheists? Look at the atheist scientists. They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works. The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub. They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory. They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses. What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what! Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.

Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.

does that include Aristotle ... are you saying all who are not biblicist christian (creationist) are defined by you as being atheist.

What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!

your issue is the influence of an undocumented book over all else, against some of who existed prior to its publication.

Aristotle and the truth.

.

 

[james bond]

Hahaha. So you admit that secular scientists do not know what they are talking about. Again, atheist scientists are wrong (this is how science works, you see). They claim that the universe is around 13.7 billion years old. It fluctuated from 20 billion to 15 billion and now around 13.7 billion. Hey, what's a few billion years among friends? The number of supernovas that we can count is a good indicator that the Earth is around 6,000 years old instead of billions. Another is as I have pointed out the Earth's landscape and how it was formed by catastrophism, not unifamitarianism.

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

 

[james bond]

.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist.

Aristotle | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Aristotle (384—322 B.C.E.)

Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre.

bond, you are a joke and highly bigoted to believe science is the work of creationist ....

The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton

ruled - (the christian world) has many meanings and interpretations most of which were negative ....


* B.C.E. is highly unlikely to be a creationist .... ko.

.

Why would Christians be that way like the atheists? Look at the atheist scientists. They steal creationist scientist's ideas and works. The recent example is using catastrophism to explain Chicxulub. They stole the "God of the Gaps" concept to use against them during The Big Bang Theory. They won't let creationist scientists in with their hypotheses. What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what! Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.

Atheist scientists are weaklings and are usually wrong. You are a good example, Wood.

does that include Aristotle ... are you saying all who are not biblicist christian (creationist) are defined by you as being atheist.

What are they afraid of? People thinking for themselves and knowing the truth, that's what!

your issue is the influence of an undocumented book over all else, against some of who existed prior to its publication.

Aristotle and the truth.

.

Hahaha. Why is Aristotle atheist?

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Hahaha. Why is Aristotle atheist?

hahaha, just guessing from you that Aristotle knew nothing about your redeemer ... and would not have sought to crucify him had they met.


* sorry if I'm not up on your posts defending a 6000 year old Earth, I can barely skim over them in all honesty am I missing something about atheism ...

.

 

[ChrisL]

There were a whole bunch of people who existed and lived before the invention of Christianity. Lol.

 

[forkup]

• First of all, I love how you use secular scientist like you have a equal battery of creasionist scientists. Note I don't say religious scientists, because there are ALOT of religious scientists. And the univere being older then 6000 years is a debate you will only find in places like this. Among scientists it is a certainty. Now to your point.HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Star > Supernova These are all pictures from Hubble of remnants of black holes. It's not like a supernova leaves a Bright star forever, It is a short event and afterwarths it leaves that. So I'll ask again how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point? Oh and btw note that The official Hubble site and NASA aren't the least bit hesitant to talk about billions of years, but you and your religiousy inspired friends feel you guys know more. If the entire scientific community the exeption being a few wayward scientist on the payroll of the creasionist museum, sais you are wrong. I find it a bit funny you guys feel you are smarter then all of them because a couple of thousand year old book sais so.
• I agree that catastrophes made the earth into what it is today. Funny tough that the only catastrophe you seem to accept is the Great flood. You have the impacter which killed of the dinosaurs. As I mentioned before the place of impact has been found using sattelites and traces of the impact are found in the Irridium layer you find globally. There are numerous Supervolcano erruptions wich have been proven by finding layers of ash and which surely would have had an enormous impact on the global climate. There are also Flood basalts proven by large areas covered by basalt which are even bigger events. The Siberian traps which is to believed to have gone for a million years and released at a minimum 1 million cubic kilometers of lava. Humanity has been writing for nearly 5000 years and I'll be generous lets not count early writing but lets start whith Egypt.Which writing we have deciphred putting the earliest written accounts at about 3000 B.C., again being generous. None of these writings talk about explosions and ashfalls, volcanic winters or anything. There has been writings about a year without a summer linked to mount Tambora a pipsqueek compared to a supervolcano. And a mini ice age linked to decreased solar activity. What we haven't found any prove off is a Global Flood. Tsunamies yes but not a flood that covered the entire planet. I just want to know, in your version of history how do you explain all these humongous events wich leave traces in the ground but not literature and a great flood which leaves traces in literature but not the ground? Do you feel Literature trumps geoligical records?

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

 

[james bond]

.

Hahaha. Why is Aristotle atheist?

hahaha, just guessing from you that Aristotle knew nothing about your redeemer ... and would not have sought to crucify him had they met.


* sorry if I'm not up on your posts defending a 6000 year old Earth, I can barely skim over them in all honesty am I missing something about atheism ...

.

That's not what I said. We know Aristotle and Jesus did not live in the same times, but that wouldn't make him atheist. We know the Greek scholars and culture had influences upon the Romans and likely Jesus. And there were probably Greeks who learned about Jesus and the Bible afterward. None of these probably had much to do with atheism. Atheism probably was expounded by a different Greek schmo.

 

[james bond]

1. I am with the creation scientists, but am open minded enough to listen to the atheists ones. Really, atheist scientists rule the science world today. It's gone 180 degrees from the time Christians ran the show. And what do we get? Much wrong hypotheses and science is headed in the wrong direction. Look at how many atheists embrace science today, but they usually are wrong or do not know what they are talking about. If I were a scientists, then I would not talk about creation. That isn't accepted in the science world ruled by atheist scientists and one could lose their job. Scientists today take themselves way too seriously and have led us down the wrong path since the 1800s. Another evidence for the earth being 6000 years old and from astronomy is the recession of the moon. I said Jesus ♥ moon, so it is one of the reasons why.

"... the moon induces tides on Earth, the planet rotates faster than the moon orbits and the tidal bulges get “ahead” of the moon. They then pull forward on the moon, causing it to gain orbital energy and move away from Earth. The effect is small but measurable—the moon moves away from the Earth by about 1.5 inches every year. The recession effect would have been larger in the past, because if the moon were closer to the earth, the tides would be larger. If we extrapolate this effect into a hypothetical past, we find that the moon would have been touching Earth 1.4 billion years ago."

A Young Moon
The Solar System: Earth and Moon | The Institute for Creation Research

2. At last, we find some common ground in that you believe in catastrophism. Usually, there is no overlap. The evidence of the global flood is 3/4 of our planet is covered by water. Evolutionists do not have an explanation. The flood waters came from underneath the earth. There is no system that would cause a global flood and global extinction. The great flood also changed our lives for the worse. The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

 

[forkup]

K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.

 

[ChrisL]

1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.

If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.

The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.

Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.

Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.

So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.

I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.

Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.

Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.

Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?

Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.

And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.

All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.

Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from 30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it, show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water. Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T, MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.

"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny. I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time. How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.

The Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible. Thus, it would not specifically mention plate tectonics. However, the continental drift theory would have to do with Pangea. Pangea isn't mentioned, but may be alluded to:

"Genesis 1:9 records, “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Presumably, if all the water was “gathered to one place,” the dry ground would also be all “in one place.” Genesis 10:25 mentions, “…one was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided…” Some point to Genesis 10:25 as evidence that the earth was divided after the Flood of Noah.

While this view is possible, it is most definitely not universally held by Christians. Some view Genesis 10:25 as referring to the “division” that occurred at the Tower of Babel, not the division of the continents via “continental drift.” Some also dispute the post-Noahic Pangea separation due to the fact that, at the current rates of drift, the continents could not possibly have drifted so far apart in the time that has transpired since the Noahic Flood. However, it cannot be proven that the continents have always drifted at the same rate. Further, God is capable of expediting the continental-drift process to accomplish His goal of separating humanity (Genesis 11:8). Again, though, the Bible does not explicitly mention Pangea, or conclusively tell us when Pangea was broken apart.

The post-Noahic Pangea concept does possibly explain how the animals and humanity were able to migrate to the different continents. How did the kangaroos get to Australia after the Flood if the continents were already separated? Young-earth creationist alternatives to the standard continental drift theory include the Catastrophist Plate Tectonics Theory (see Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: Geophysical Context Genesis Flood) and the Hydroplate Theory (see In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview), both of which place accelerated continental drift within the cataclysmic context of Noah’s Flood."

I agree about not even distribution, but still not enough sediment for billions of years. There is around 20 billion tons of sediment that gets deposited on the floor. The movement of the plate tectonics form convergent boundaries which cause lithospheric subduction and the removal of about one billion tons of sediment. Your data backs up the young earth than that of evolution.

I lost you when you started into the magnetic fields and resonance. What does it have to do with Noah's Flood (I'm assuming you are referring to it and the 3/4 waters)?

I notice that you only went into a small portion of my post. I'll answer what you asked first. My bit of magnetic reconance was a debunking of the catastrophic plate tectonics. As to your sediment, as i mentioned before sediment turns into rock with time and pressure. The earths crust is between 30 and 50km deep. Not all the crust used to be sediment of course and with the subduction zones rocks constanly is renewed so I don't see how you would think sediment thickness is a proof of a young earth. Now as to your main answer. You showed me a few verses which you even admit are so vague that religious sholars can't agree to their meaning themselfs. You know theirs another thing that uses vague sentencing to let ppl fill in their meaning of what it means, it's called astrology and I personally don't feel astrology is any bases to challenge science. If catastropic plate tectonics hold up against peer review it would have been accepted scientific knowledge eventually, just like actual plate tectonics eventually became accepted. And for the record continental moving is recorded today using GPS and that's how Pangea got introduced by extropolating that movement back in time. That same extrapolation explains why theirs coal on the antartic.

Your posts are great. You are kicking ass in this thread!