If God doesn't exist...

[forkup]

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!

I'm kind of enjoying it myself. It's actually very intresting to see the replies. I'm baffled that after about 30 posts or something back and forth, and me trying about 7 or 8 different ways to show how impossible his position is James is still capable of keeping up his young earth position.

 

[LittleNipper]

Two Vastly Different Views:
Let's not kid ourselves. What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood and about 6000 years ago with regard to Creation itself. Is the Bible accurate and true or is it just a book of allegorical stories?

Was the great majority of the world's sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of TIME and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history and how we came to be?

This is also about God's future judgment of mankind and the return of Jesus to rule over the Earth -- that God and He created -- and to which He compared to the Days of Noah and the Flood. See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12.

Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood. Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils." Such fossils are found all over the world: especially in and around coal seams. They are often in the form of fossil trees that were buried upright and which often cross multiple layers of strata such as sandstone, shale, limestone and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4 They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. Sometimes they are oblique (or at an angle to) the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular with (or standing 'upright' in) it. For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of the trees are from 10-20 feet long, 5,6 and at least one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7
Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8 have both roots and rootlets attached. Such trees, and their missing roots are discussed in detail in an article on 'Fossil Forests'. 9 Likewise many, if not most, of the large, fragmented, and broken-off Stigmaria roots (of these trees) are also missing their rootlets. In fact, that's how the word "stigmaria" (roots) got its name: i.e. because of the scar marks left behind from the broken off (and now missing) rootlets. 9

Many of these roots and rootlets are also buried individually. 9 Thus virtually proving that neither the trees themselves, nor their rootlets were buried in the place where they grew, or "in situ," but were uprooted and re-buried where they are now found.
Similar circumstances occur elsewhere in Nova Scotia and other Canadian provinces, as well as the United States, South America, Europe, China, Russia, and Australia. Buried tree stumps are also found on Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada and wherever coal seams are found.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, much of it is from books that are over 100 years old. One of the first articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that ... polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition. Curiously a paper on polystrate fossils appears to be a 'black swan’ in geological literature. Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of the relevant phenomena was never published. However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils. In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12 Emphasis Added

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is still the case has more to do with a pervasive bias against any and all evidence for a Creator to whom we may one day have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions and millions of years that such a belief needs to make it seem true.

See also Organic levels of the Yellowstone Petrified ForestThe Yellowstone Petrified Forests 14

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. 15 Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. 16 Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past. Rapid Petrification of Wood

Clastic Dikes:

According to Austin, a clastic dike is:
"a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass." 17
"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in igneous and metamorphic rocks. The process of formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17


Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in that massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata. This must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state. This is clearly brought out in a book on this subject by Dr. John Morris on this same subject: i.e. on the Age of the Earth.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would think that a million years would be more than enough time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone, yet we have an example of sediments which are said to be 80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in a wet and plastic state when an earth movement caused them to be forced up into the (supposedly much) younger sediments. Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary method of "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strong suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19

Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick. One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin laminations up to 25 feet thick. The third eruption was a lava flow, which turned into a hot mud-flow as it crossed the Toutle River. This hot mud flow not only diverted the river, but carved a 17 mile long series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours. They call it the Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River." 20,21,22 And to this very day, neither the mass media, nor any popular "science" publications have told the public what happened. 23 See also Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:
In Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded through solid basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is 300 to 500 feet deep. 24,25,26,27,28

An Australian Beach:
At Greenmount Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred:

"clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed by the separation of normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark in color.. The layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed." 29

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of sand from (a) sand bar (on) the Tweed River and carrying it by ship several kilometres north to the southern Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach." 29

See also Talking About Geology / Varves. 30

Dr. Guy Berthault has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. 31,32,33 See following links for more info and visual documentation: Evolution: Fact or Belief?, Experiments in Stratification, and Sedimentation Experiments.

Turbidity Currents:
A turbidity current is an underwater mud flow, the discovery of which caused somewhat of a revolution in geology. As a result, many sedimentary strata layers throughout the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites. 34,35,36,37,38,39,40

For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard 41 said the following in his paper on this topic:


My physical geology professor said, "Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it with a grain of salt." After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the ... professor's advice. To paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while ... recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours. {1}

In 1972 Burgert identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon's Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University's Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world's sedimentary rocks might be turbidites.

Modern geologists discarded the terms flysch sediments and geosyncline because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline and adopting the new catastrophism is almost a shock to ... creationists. Geologists are finally beginning to grudgingly agree with ... creationists about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of a global flood. The idea of geosynclines is unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics. Emphasis Added

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone covers over half of the United States, and drawings from Dana's Manual of Geology depict over 90 percent of the United States and Mexico, and half of Canada under water. We also know that the Grand Canyon was once under the ocean because of the marine fossils that have been found there.

Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years. Some claim that much of the strata is simply "river" deposits or river deltas. 42,43 Creationists and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. 44,45 First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the layers tells us that they could not have been formed by rivers, nor river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick and cover literally thousands of square miles.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents by a flood or floods like nothing we have seen in moderns times.

We can say for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine fossils that are buried in much of this strata. For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself, old Earth geologists have said that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six different occasions. Young Earth geologists say it was probably only once.

A Whale of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.

"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.
"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long. 46,47

More Fossil Whales:
"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?" 48
"Bones of Whale have been found 440 feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48

video 54 by Dr. Walter Brown. See also Seashell on the Mountaintop by Alan Cutler.

Frozen Mammoths:
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe. Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs meat from them when they became exposed due to melting ice and snow: that is, if wolves didn't get their first. For more details see the Book.

Fissures In The Rocks:
In caves and fissures in England and Whales and all over western Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf and cave lion. In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered. 55
"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay - a flat-topped hill near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon and Lyons - there is a fissure filled with animal bones. 'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?' asked Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes. According to him, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable ... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have they been broken by man. Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were ... abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and deer... Prestwich thought that the ... bones... were found in common heaps because, '... [they] ... fled [there] to escape the rising waters.'" 55,56

Erratic Boulders:
All over Europe and North America are found large "erratic" "boulders" which were transported many miles by some mysterious force -- the most likely of which is a massive flood that swept over the Continents. Concerning these Velikovsky writes:
"Some erratics are enormous. The block near Conway, New Hampshire, is 90 by 40 by 38 feet and weighs about 10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship. Equally large is Mohegan Rock, which towers over the town of Montville, in Connecticut. The great flat erratic in Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and covers three quarters of an acre; the Ototoks erratic, thirty miles south of Calgary, Alberta, consists of two pieces of quartzite 'derived from at least 50 miles to the west,' [and weighs] over 18,000 tons." 57

Was the Flood Local or Worldwide?
In the late 60's and early 70's:


"Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom ... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past." 58

"The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago." 1 To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago ... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood. 58 Emphasis Added
"Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent." 58

The Black Sea Evidence:

"Science... has found evidence for a massive deluge that may ... have inspired Noah's tale. About 7,500 years ago, a flood poured ten cubic miles of water a day -- 130 times more than flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea, abruptly turning the formerly freshwater lake into a brackish inland sea." 59

"In 1993, William Ryan and Walter Pitman of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory dug up cores of sediment from the bottom of the Black sea. The cores showed that the sea's outer margins had once been dry land, indicating it had been two-thirds its present size. Furthermore, over the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer of sediment that could only have been deposited during a flood. The researchers also found that within that layer saltwater mollusks appear, all from the Mediterranean and all dating from around 7600 years ago." 59

See also the PBS article on this evidence.

Miracle or Worldwide Flood?


"Such a hypothesis would require assumption of a highly unlikely pattern of faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras are followed, everywhere at the same distance and the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheiloceras, the two waves preserving their separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and without ever becoming mixed..." 60

"It would be easy to repeat this investigation for almost every critical zone fossil or fauna throughout the geological column for hundreds, perhaps thousands of ... cases. The conclusions would be the same. In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we would have to 'invoke a miracle', if, for example, we were to assume anything but world-wide contemporaneous deposition for each of the 55 ammonite zones of the Jurassic. Not all of them occur everywhere, but wherever two or more are found in superposition they occur in the same order. 60 Arkell ... summarized the picture of ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:

'Evolution is above all very uneven. Certain periods were outstandingly productive of new and verile forms which often seem to have sprung into existence from nowhere ... and to have become dominant almost simultaneously over a large part of the world ... How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is a task for the future to determine.'" 60, 61
Note: Manticoceras and Cheiloceras are two different types of ammonites.

Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order Fossils:
The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.
"I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." 62 And that:

"Heretofore, we have thrown up our hands in frustration at the lack of expected pattern in life's history -- or we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it If we can develop a ... theory of mass extinction, we may finally understand why life has thwarted our expectations, and ... extract an unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos. 62

"One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression..." 63

"... only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order." 64

"Any sequence in which an older fossil occurs above a younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may be from millimeters to many meters ... (and) is produced by the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since these processes occur to an extent in virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic disorder at some scale is probably a common feature of the fossil record." 65

"The extent of disorder is ... not well documented; however, the widespread occurrence of anomalies ... suggest that disorder should be taken seriously ..." ref. 61 p. 234. W. J. Arkell.

"Examination of Britain's record of the Ice Age levels discloses a 'complex interbedding of drift sheets derived from different sources.' 'When we add the additional complications imposed by thin drifts, scanty interglacial deposits, and the frequent presence in fossil - bearing beds of secondary [displaced] fossils derived from the reworking of older horizons, we get a truly difficult overall problem ... All in all, British glacial stratigraphic research has encountered exceptional difficulties,' writes R. F. Flint, professor of geology at Yale University. 66, 67 Emphasis Added


Problematica:
"Problematica" is the "code word" paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are misplaced, interbedded, or "mixed" in with other strata of a different "date." According to an online Italian to English dictionary the term means "problems." Several years ago, a Google search on this term yielded over a million hits. To some, if not many that seems like a lot of problems for uniformitarian geology to explain. A few such problems are discussed in an article called Sea sloths and out of order Fossils.

For more information on the Worldwide Flood, or how a Boat with Thousands of Animals onboard could possibly have survived see the links below.

http://www.earthage.org/floodlegends/flood__legends.htm
References
Flood Legends Days or EpochsPolystrate FossilsScripture Evidencehttp://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil_Trees_of_Nova_Scotia.htm
The La Brea Tar PitsThe Florida EvergladesPsalm 104 and the FloodMore Scriptural Evidence Evidence from CyclothemsQuestions about Noah's FloodEvidence for a Worldwide Floodhttp://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/Cyclothems/Cyclothems.html
Tectonic Wedge Resonance TheorySea Sloths and Out of Order FossilsHomeAcknowledgements Comments

Copyright, 2006, 2010, 2013, Randy S. Berg;
Copies may be printed or copied and distributed freely for educational purposes




The Age of the Earth

Introduction
The Age of the Earth Debate

Radiometric Dating Continental Drift The Big Bang

Worldwide Flood Young Earth Evidence

The Missing RootsThe Missing MatterEssays on EvolutionScience vs EvolutionThe Age of the EarthYoung Earth EvidenceThe Age of the Universe
More Geologic Evidences
Evidence for a Young World
Evidence for a Recent Creation
The Scriptures and a Young EarthIs Earth really 4.5 Billion Years Old? What you may not Know about Ice Cores If Corals are Old, why do they Date Young?http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/earthage.html
Do Evaporites & Varves favor an Old Earth? http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/glacier-girl.htm
Young age of the Earth & Universe Q & A The Young Earth The Age of the EarthFaith, Form, and Timehttp://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2548
Thousands Not BillionsThe Great Turning PointIts a Young World after AllIllustrated Origins Answer Book
Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth

Creationist Author Links
Creation Web Sites Links
VHS& DVD Video Links
The Age of the EarthModern Science's Foundation
True Origin Archive on Creation


Home
Fantasy LandOld Earth EvidenceThe Age of the Earth Debate
Did Humans come from Coral?Was the Earth Created Instantly?
Six Days or Six Long Time Periods
Are Dinosaurs Millions of Years Old?

 

[LittleNipper]

Does Science Prove Noah's Flood?


06/03/12 9:51 AM


Marianne Loves
Yeshua HaMashiach

WND EXCLUSIVE
Does science prove Noah's flood?
Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account
Published: 17 hours ago

By Michael Haverluck

For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.

But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.

That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.

In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.

A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.

More Water

According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.

Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”

Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.

Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.



Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.

“In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”

For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.

“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”

This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.

“About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”

Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.

“Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”

Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.

See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”

Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.

Dishing out the hydroplate theory

Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.

“As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”

To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.

To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here.

“All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”

According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.

“Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”

Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.

The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.

“The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.

To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.

The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.

“Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”

Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.

“Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”

In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.

Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.

Let it roll

Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.

“Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”

Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.

“The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”

Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.

Debunking the evolutionary model

Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.

Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.

Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.

Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific

 

[forkup]

I'm guessing that this post is

Does Science Prove Noah's Flood?


06/03/12 9:51 AM


Marianne Loves
Yeshua HaMashiach

WND EXCLUSIVE
Does science prove Noah's flood?
Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account
Published: 17 hours ago

By Michael Haverluck

For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.

But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.

That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.

In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.

A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.

More Water

According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.

Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”

Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.

Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.



Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.

“In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”

For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.

“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”

This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.

“About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”

Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.

“Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”

Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.

See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”

Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.

Dishing out the hydroplate theory

Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.

“As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”

To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.

To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here.

“All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”

According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.

“Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”

Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.

The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.

“The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.

To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.

The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.

“Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”

Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.

“Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”

In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.

Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.

Let it roll

Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.

“Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”

Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.

“The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”

Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.

Debunking the evolutionary model

Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.

Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.

Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.

Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific

ki

Does Science Prove Noah's Flood?


06/03/12 9:51 AM


Marianne Loves
Yeshua HaMashiach

WND EXCLUSIVE
Does science prove Noah's flood?
Evidence of flood hydroplate theory cited to support biblical account
Published: 17 hours ago

By Michael Haverluck

For decades, science books in America’s schools have taught that the earth is billions of years old, with the Big Bang bursting through the universe some 14.3 billion years ago. They teach children that bacteria has been around a billion years or so and that the “Precambrian Explosion” some 500 million years ago launched some of the earliest forms of life.

But what if the evidence doesn’t support that? What if scientific observation suggests that the Bible’s literal account of thousands of years is right.

That is the position of Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix.

His own scientific credentials are impressive. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is a West Point graduate and a National Science Foundation fellow, served as a tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College.

His blunt assessment is that some evolutionary explanations would be more relevant at a Star Wars convention than in a science classroom. Pangaea, plate tectonics and asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs might work in state-issued textbooks, but they do not pass the scrutiny of Brown’s scientific research.

In the Eighth edition of his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,” Brown presents his hydroplate theory, which unfolds scientific evidence that the earth’s present geologic features and fossils were formed around 5,000 years ago — not untold millions or billions of years ago. He asserts that the global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the mechanism that created the geologic, astronomical and biological phenomena witnesseed today.

A major motivation that has propelled Brown’s decades of research has been his quest to give Christian students answers that will withstand scrutiny when challenged by Darwinist theories within the classroom. He notes that he does not rely on faith, miracles or sped-up evolutionary processes to buttress his theory – only observable and calculable data.

More Water

According to Brown, the earth was an extremely different place before Noah’s flood. Oceans were much shallower and mountains much lower. He notes that it is no coincidence that more than 230 flood legends – with many common elements such as a sole surviving family in a boat – exist from every corner of the earth. In fact, the flood of Noah is the very device that sets Brown’s hydroplate theory in motion.

Atheists have scoffed at its mention and religionists have denied it’s truth, but here’s the scientific and archaeological evidence of “The Red Sea Crossing.”

Many skeptics ponder how the entire earth could have been covered in water, especially with many mountain ranges extending miles into the sky. Brown argues that pre-flood oceans contained half their present volume of water and that the Earth’s massive mountain ranges were not yet pushed up.

Brown contends that “water depth would be 9,000 feet everywhere” if the earth’s surface was completely smooth, easily covering the low-lying mountains that existed at the time of the flood.



Tapping into the scientific validity of the Bible, Brown lets the book of Genesis uncork the source of the floodwaters that reshaped the earth to its present appearance.

“In the 600th year of Noah’s life, on the 17th day of the second month – on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened,” reads Genesis 7:11-12. “And rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights.”

For those wondering where such torrents of water would originate, Brown also has students examine the beginning of the Bible’s first book, which specifies that underground waters were set in place on the second day of Creation.

“And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water,’” states Genesis 1:6-7. “So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.”

This expanse, says Brown, is the earth’s crust separating the shallow oceans and seas above from the water trapped underneath, before much of it jettisoned during the flood two millennia later.

“About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface,” explains Brown. “The average thickness of the subterranean water was at least three-quarters of a mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite crust; beneath the water was earth’s mantle.”

Brown gives a visual of what he calculates the earth looked like before catastrophic forces pushed mountains tens of thousands of feet higher.

“Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas were … joined across what is now the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown asserts. “On the pre-flood crust were deep and shallow seas, and mountains – generally smaller than those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.”

Yet not all subterranean water escaped during the flood, asserts Brown. He argues that earthquakes provide evidence that oceans of water still exist underneath the crust, noting that only underground channels of water could rapidly transmit shockwaves thousands of miles from the epicenter.

See the “Incredible Creatures that Defy Evoluation III” and “Something Transhuman This Way Comes.”

Effects of this transmission are evidenced around lakes, where the crust is thinner. If the shockwaves were going through solid rock, instead of water, the earthquake’s effects would never extend great distances, as it did after an Alaskan earthquake, when transmitted shockwaves broke boat moorings in Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain ─ more than 4,000 miles away.

Dishing out the hydroplate theory

Because of tidal pumping forces increasing the water pressure beneath the miles of rock over the centuries, the crust stretched like an inflating balloon, says Brown. This pressure triggered a crack that ended up rupturing the earth’s crust – a process that Brown calculates took about two hours to wrap around the globe.

“As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth,” Brown explained. “Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped [and] caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep ‘slit’ that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.”

To relate the magnitude of this release, Brown equates it to the impact of 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs, ripping a tear down the middle of the Atlantic, veering beneath Africa and Australia, running north a couple thousand miles off South America’s west coast, dipping under North America off Mexico’s west coast to Alaska, resurfacing in the Arctic Circle and continuing down through Iceland.

To see a video presentation of the theory, Click here.

“All along this globe-circling rupture, whose path approximates today’s Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a fountain of water jetted supersonically into and far above the atmosphere,” posits Brown. “Some of the water fragmented into an ‘ocean’ of droplets that fell as rain such as the earth has never experienced – before or after.”

According to Brown, this cataclysmic event had more than geologic effects.

“Other jetting water rose above the atmosphere, where it froze and then fell on various regions of earth as huge masses of extreme cold, muddy ‘hail,’” Brown stated. “That hail buried, suffocated and froze many animals, including some mammoths.”

Brown notes that this explains how mammoths froze in minutes while still chewing vegetation, which requires temperatures of -150 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than any natural temperatures ever recorded on earth.

The effects were of astronomical proportions, as well, says Brown.

“The most powerful jetting water and rock debris escaped earth’s gravity and became the solar system’s comets, asteroids and meteoroids,” Brown claims.

To buttress this assertion, Brown adds that numerous cosmic bodies in the solar system possess scientifically documented characteristics that support the earth’s supersonic expulsion – such as spin, density, composition, size, number, texture and orbital measurements. He credits this event with creating craters on the moon and terrestrial planets, many containing craters on their outer-facing sides with ice still inside of them.

The earth itself is also replete with many topological features formed during the flood. Ocean trenches are one of these phenomena.

“Deep folds, up to thousands of miles long and several miles deep, lie at the floor of the western Pacific Ocean in an area centered directly opposite of the Atlantic Ocean,” Brown explains. “As the flood increasingly altered the earth’s balanced, spherical shape, growing gravitational forces tended to squeeze the earth back toward a more spherical shape.”

Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds – one being his scientific explanation and diagram demonstrating why such pressure would crush the plate, not pull it down.

“Once a ‘tipping point’ was reached, the portion of the subterranean chamber floor – with the most overlying rock removed – rose at least eight miles to become today’s Atlantic floor,” Brown added. “This caused the Pacific floor ─ the region inside the Ring of Fire ─ to sink and buckle inward, producing folds called ocean trenches.”

In other words, the outburst and pressure release on the Atlantic side caused suction on the opposite side of the globe, pulling down the area where the world’s deepest ocean trenches (around the Pacific Rim) are concentrated today.

Brown points to the tens of thousands of volcanoes formed inside the “Ring of Fire” ─ where 90 percent of earthquakes originate ─ as modern evidence of the massive pressure release and drop of the Pacific Rim that formed this volcanic zone during the flood.

Let it roll

Even with the plummet of the Pacific floor, the most earth-changing event was yet to occur, as Brown contends that once the fountains of the great deep came to a halt after 40 days, other mechanisms were set into motion. He notes that these fountains that pushed up the crust on both sides to form the 46,000-mile Mid-Oceanic Ridge not only flooded the world; they produced massive amounts of sediment from the eroded rock that buried plants and animals to form the stratified fossil record.

“Then the hydroplates slid down and away from the inclining Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” Brown describes, illustrating how this separated the east coast of North and South America from Europe and Africa. “Once the gradually advancing plates reached speeds of about 45 miles per hour, they would collide, compress and buckle.”

Brown credits the process with fashioning today’s topography, comparing the event to a train falling down railroad tracks after being lifted in the middle. He notes that once the railway cars (hydroplates) run out of track (subterranean water), they lose momentum, crumple and jackknife. The 46,000-mile earth-encircling rupture quickly grew to an average width of 800 miles, says Brown, and when the subterranean water ceased escaping, the remaining water acted as a lubricant to propel the hydroplates.

“The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges. Naturally, the long axis of each buckled mountain was generally perpendicular to its hydroplate’s motion or parallel to the portion of the Mid-Oceanic Ridge from which it slid. So the Rocky Mountains, Appalachians and Andes have a north-south orientation.”

Besides spurring the formation of mountain ranges, plateaus and the jigsaw fit of the continents, this compression event caused a catastrophic imbalance in the earth’s sphericity, caused by the upthrust of the Himalayan Plateau. The massive thickening of the crust containing the 10 highest peaks on earth produced a net centrifugal force that rolled the Himalayas 35 to 45 degrees toward today’s equator. Brown says this axis tilt explains why plants and animals from warm climates are buried in today’s Polar Regions.

Debunking the evolutionary model

Brown argues that the evolutionists’ account of a comet, asteroid or volcanic activity triggering the extinction of the dinosaurs is flawed. He contends that only a global flood could have generated a mass rapid burial and fossilization of animals, as all remains would have rotted away if they had died without being submerged in water to preserve them. Brown also explains that fossils’ similar density and mass discovered on the same levels of the geologic column prove that dinosaur remains were sorted and buried just thousands of years ago in a flood, not merely interred hundreds of millions of years ago in a series of mass extinctions.

Another #+$## in evolutionists’ armor, says Brown, is that the soft bone tissue and DNA found in dinosaur remains could not exist for more than thousands of years. On top of this, he points out that intentionally inflated and incorrect readings of fossils and rocks measured using various dating techniques further put evolutionists’ millions- and billions-of-years-old origins account into disrepute.

Evolutionary stories describing gradual erosion taking place over millions of years to form various natural wonders have also been shot down by Brown’s geological observations in and around the Grand Canyon, the Strait of Gibraltar and the channel under the Golden Gate Bridge. He presents evidence that these were carved by rapid erosion from nearby breaches of large bodies of water, which carved out these marvels of nature in a matter of weeks or months, not millions of years.

In addition to the aforementioned arguments for a young earth, Brown also turns to the Bible to dispel dozens of theistic evolution claims. One fundamental teaching from the Bible, that sin preceded death (Genesis 2:17, 3:1-24; Romans 5:12, 6:23), demonstrates that evolution is not compatible with Scripture, as naturalistic doctrine claims that animals and “primitive” humans died for untold millions of years before Adam and Eve’s original sin approximately 7,000 years ago, conversely stating that death preceded sin.

Brown examines other phenomena and topics that provide further evidence for the Bible’s accuracy and a young earth, including Noah’s Ark; symbiotic relationships; strange planets; the moon’s dust, origin and recession; planetary rings; a faint, young sun; the first and second laws of thermodynamics; the devolving of languages; biblical genealogies; mutations; mitochondrial Eve; and many more in his book.

As a former evolutionist and atheist, Brown is quite familiar with all the arguments from the other side. But does his flood account hold water to competing theories?

For decades, evolutionists and creationists alike have refused to debate Brown’s scientific findings. He has a few stipulations – that the debate is published in a major scientific journal, that his opponent supporting evolution hold a doctorate and that religion is not discussed in the debate, only scientific data.

Brown reports some 50 of the circumstances he would expect to see develop under his theory have been documented and concludes that it is the Bible’s description of origins that are, simply, scientific

I'm guessing this post is kind of a challenge to me. I'll admit when I saw these 2 posts I was a bit worried. The cheer volume of the information on here made me a bit apprehensive. This post has done something I've tried very hard to avoid, namely the copy and pasting from entire articles. For one it feels like cheating a little bit, since your not voicing your own thaughts, and to me personally it doesn't say anything of your debating skill but more about your ability to webbrowse. Theirs nothing wrong whith browsing the web and even posting parts of articles to clarify and reiterate your point, but taking them wholesale seems a bit easy.
Now to the posts themself, I've read both articles carefully and afterwarths I've done some webbrowsing of my own. The first points of the rebuke I'll make are the things that became apparent to me. I'll make those first. First of all, in the first post theirs assumptions being made that I immediatly pegged as wrong. First of all it's being implied that regular science has no way of explaining polystrata fossils. I'm a layman but I can think of at least one, earthquakes. I know they litteraly shift the ground and at the fault line the different strata wont be alligned. Second it's implied that science doesn't explain how fossils start because fossilasation requires carcasses to be submerged immediatly. Regular science doesn't deny the conditions needed for fossilation and they also don't deny the existence of flooding, how can they it happens today too. Flashfloods and tsunamies are well documented so saying science don't recognice them is pretty stupid. Thirdly his moving boulders. Here he implies there's no other explanation then a flood. While I know that scientist have linked those boulders to glestjers moving during the ice ages. I also read a bit about science vessels digging up cores from the Gulf of Mexico, I found that segment particulary weird, first of they talk about timeperiods of around 12000 years wich of itself is longer then creationist think the earth existed and secondly even weirder I think, they apperently drew from localised samples in the Gulf of Mexico that the same thing happened WORLDWIDE. How do you draw that conclussion is beyond me. Another disrepudancy is the Black Sea bit. The article states that it may be the basis of the Noah Myth. I kinda agree with that, it sounds logical and there is actual evidence to support it, but how it helps the Creationist cause is beyond me.
The second article I've noticed 2 things. First of all quotes Genesis with in Noahs 600 year of life. 600 Year old ppl are simply unsustainable. If Brown is like he said using scientific fact he should be able to explain how a person gets to be that old, using science not biblical quotes. I also noted this "Brown argues there are 15 reasons why the massive plates on the earth’s surface cannot dive into the earth and drag down the folds" and a couple of lines further "The plates that buckled downward became ocean trenches, and those that buckled upward became mountains,” Brown clarified. “This explains why large mountain ranges are in correlation to their oceanic ridges." He littarely contradicts himself.
Now comes the part of my reasons I've found while browsing the web. These are not all the ways to debunk but these are the ones that stuck with me. I did all my reading about 8 hours ago. First of all the credentials.Walt Brown, director of the Center for Scientific Creation in Phoenix. which consist of him and him alone. You can give yourself any title you want of course but it seems intellectually dishonest to me. Second he does hold a degree from MIT but one in electrical engineering and not like you would expect by his model one in geoligy or geophysics.
His hydroplate model would need a perfectly flat surface to work since any blemish would have caused the eruption to happen immediatly but the creation story sais god created mountains on one of the days of creation. 1,800 trillion hydrogen bombs To grasp the enormity of that number, note that the entire surface of the Earth (including the oceans) has only about 510 trillion square meters. That means that if even 1% (still generous to Brown) of the energy were left on earth, it would be the equivalent of over 3 H-bombs for every square meter on earth! and yet Noah survived that heat in a wooden boat. Meteorites and comets make up at least 100 times the total mass of the Earth so claiming they are from earth is like claiming a mouse gave birth to an elephant. Carcasses aren't the only things that fossilised. Footprints and nest have been found to. How does that get preserved trough a global flood? On and on. I'll give you the link you'll find numerous other things to but I feel I made my point.Walter Brown's Hydroplate Model Doesn't Hold Water

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research/investigation/educational thought to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

 

[forkup]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific researdh to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonim to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

 

[forkup]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

 

[BreezeWood]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material

.

from approximately the same distance both celestial objects are "inert" however because of varying factors the probability of one to manifest organic compounds is exponentially more probable than the other and in fact an almost certainty over time more likely than not to occur.

inert material alone is not the determining factor.

.

 

[forkup]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.

 

[forkup]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.

I have to put out a revision. I didn't mean the beginning of the universe because we obviously know there was a big bang, what science can't explain yet is what caused, or what came before the big bang. Sorry for the confusion this may have caused.

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD even shut the door of the Ark. I'm sure GOD can take care of even a leaf floating on the ocean if that is HIS goal. Before the FLOOD it is reasonable to believe that the environment was healthier. Even lizards continue to grow for as long as they live. This alone is a reasonable explanation for the gigantic fossilized organisms found.

However, even if you disagree, I see no logical reason why your pet theory should mean that creationism must be excluded. There is enough scientific research to go around. But perhaps sharing the stage is not what evolutionists want.

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.

Have evolutionists proven that there is no GOD? Have Uniformitarians proven there was no Worldwide Flood? It seems to me that such questions can go both ways. Catholics, Muslims and Jews All accept the Bible as the authoritative. The Pope is wrong concerning unmarried priests, why should he be correct in an understanding of evolution. Creation provides a valid case for GOD, yet Evolutionists are the only ones allowed to hypothesize educationally speaking. Miracles do happen unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[james bond]

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.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

 

[james bond]

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!

Sez the person who does not know his arse from a hole in the ground lol.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

 

[forkup]

Have you followed my discussion with James. I litteraly have used geoligy, physics, chemistry, archeoligy,geoligy, vulcanoligy, astronomy, genetics, Paleontoligy to disprove a young earth. Now all of these have to be fundamentally wrong in order for Creatonism to work. Now I wouldn't mind it, if they where wrong that's the good thing about science I don't have to stay married to an idea. But I do have to ask, if you put something up in a science class that it goes trough the same process that all scientific ideas go through. the process of peer review, experimantation and constant testing. otherwise you can not call it science. That's the thing about Creatonism it asks the same acceptance as regular science without being subjected to the the same scrutiny. In a scientist a critical mind is required, the want to discover and prove new things, the opposite of what Creatonism wants in short.

What Creation implies is that GOD created a complete and finished ecological system for the animals and humans to live in. It allows for the probability that GOD would CREATE a mature environment, as well as, an ADULT named Adam, and not a baby. Yes, I believe GOD created minerals, metals, and all the various elements necessary. This is not possible to demonstrate scientifically. However, the FLOOD is something that calls into question much of want evolutionists and uniformitarians present as "FACT" in public educational institutions without proof of HOW or WHY. This needs to be addressed. At one time the Bible was the one factor that faculty & students had to contend with philosophically. Today, there is no contention because GOD has been banished and all the student has to do is listen.................

There are a few things here I want to point out. There's a clearcut difference between Creationism and science. Science requires proving of hyphotese, altough there's plenty of speculation in science, but before anything is accepted it needs to be proven. It's the scientific method, you have an assumption, you find a way to confirm that assumption, then you conduct that experiment and if the results is what you think you write about it. After you publish it you get reviewed by your peers at which point your idea can become accepted. Even after all that if other experiments show that your assumption is wrong then your peers can and do go back to see where the fault is. Creatonism goes something like this. You have a book written by an uknown author'(s) claiming very spectacular things and you find a way to put those fantastic things into something resembling science, using any means at your disposal. You say I cant proof scientificaly that god created anything, yet you apparently want it to be thaught to all kids and presented as fact. Btw Creatonist are niche group in Christianity, why do you feel that niche group should have more rights then Muslims, Jews, or run of te mill Catholics? The pope accepts Evolution.Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God. When you say there is no room for God in education then I can only submit that you need to be equally willing to have your kid been thaught the Koran. One last point you say there's plenty of scientific research to go around. But when you can actually disprove something isn't it reasonable to let that idea go? 2 direct questions I hope you are willing to answer them?

The Bible says, "In the beginning GOD created Space and Matter." All followers of Christ should understand this. You cannot prove that life originated spontaneously from inert material, and yet you have no problem with "scientific theories" that paint themselves into that corner and influencing students to accept this very premise without contradiction.

First of all, I notice you didn't answer my questions. So you are saying that you and all creasionist are right and the rest should just let your clearly wrong beliefs be thaught to all children? As to the second bit. Troughout history man has called a divine being into everything they can't explain. From early naturist religions trough the Egyptians, Norse,Greco into current Monotheistic religions. In all these instances with knowledge,religion was proven wrong over and over again. In this day and age I can Identify 2 places Science can't go yet. The start of life on this planet and the beginning of the universe. Science provides an hypothesis for the start of life and an accepted theory for the evolving of it. I have no problem whith saying that in absence of an accepted theory of the start of life, God is equally valid. I consider it unlikely but since that"s just an opinion I won't debate it. The same can be said for the beginning of the universe. Plenty of hypothesis not any real proof. On the other hand there is an enormous body of evidence disproving Genisis and confirming Evolution, so like I said unless every field of science is fundamentelly flawed it's not possible Creationism works. You where saying science puts itself into corners. Science doesn't provide ALL answers, it does however provide a relentless search for them. Religion and especially Creationism is so narrow in it beliefs that it took me 1 post for you to invoke a miracle in order to let Noah survive if that's not painting you in a corner I don't know what is.

Have evolutionists proven that there is no GOD? Have Uniformitarians proven there was no Worldwide Flood? It seems to me that such questions can go both ways. Catholics, Muslims and Jews All accept the Bible as the authoritative. The Pope is wrong concerning unmarried priests, why should he be correct in an understanding of evolution. Creation provides a valid case for GOD, yet Evolutionists are the only ones allowed to hypothesize educationally speaking. Miracles do happen unless you can prove otherwise.

Proof there is no God. I think i already said I can't. I did point out, that God is not a new idea nore that your version of believing is a very popular one. Proof there was no worldwide flood. I most certainly can. Geological layers are chronoligical. They all appear in the same order. Not all layers are in every rock sample but what is there is always in the same order. There have been worldwide cataclysmic events that appear in all the rocklayers. Several mass extinction events actually. A worldwide flood is not one of those geoligical events we can identify. See it's not enough to find proof of flooding , you need to find flooding worldwide in the same strata. See proof given. Creationist can hypothesese as much as they want, providing those hypotheses go trough the same process as all science, namely hypothesese, experiment, peer review and constant testing and even more importantly if those hypothesis proof faulty that they be abandoned. As to miracles, If I would claim I've seen a unicorn, is the burden of proof then on you to say it's not true? Miracles are very convinient because it absolves you from the need to proof anything, I don't mind it as long as you don't try to call it scientific at the same time.

 

[james bond]

.

Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

reading your post is entertaining ...

the universe being created would have both a beginning and an end point, have you their locations to determine your 6000 year model for it's existence ?

.

Good question, BreezeWood. Humans would like to know definitively the beginning and end point of life, the earth, and the universe. However, God wanted to keep some things secret. The Bible says that we will never know. This is another evidence for the existence of God. However, people will try to find the answer. The whole universe can be explored and the answers found except for this.

This includes the age of the earth, too. We will not get the exact time and place, but radiocarbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is not billions of years old, but relatively young.

 

[forkup]

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.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1 God, then there was 1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

• Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
• Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
• A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: craie bleue) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]

that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.

 

[forkup]

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.

You have no proof since scientific hypothesis can be wrong. Science has no proofs. That is the nature of science. Jeez, you look bad trying to explain science. Instead, I debunked your millions of years old earth because even with sediment leaving, there is more sediment that arrives. If science would accept a God theory, and we are to use the God hypothesis, then the claims I make cannot change.

So, the magnetic reconance (sic), whatever that is. debunks catastrophic plate tectonics. How does it do that? What happens to the rocks that are formed. Why aren't there more Cliffs of Dover if what you say is correct? And weren't those cliffs formed by floods, a form of catastrophism and not uniformitarianism as you claim? You need to explain yourself.

What verses of the Bible are you referring to? Most of the verses are not vague in my opinion. The people who make up their own interpretations, at least the parts relating to science, are the old earth believers. People who try to incorporate evolutionary thinking are not correct and claim believing in Jesus is the important part.

Then you ramble on to astrology. What does that have to do with what we are discussing? Do you mean cosmology? That is just scientific philosophy or guessing. One can't trust that as being scientific.

Pangaea was introduced in 1912 because of the work of Alfred Wegener, a Christian scientist. He is considered the father of the modern day continental drift theory. Convenient you left this part out. Today, most scientists accept his theory and plate tectonics which move a few inches per year. Why is it that I know so much about evolutionary thinking while you appear to know very little about Christian scientists and creation science? That's why you continue to look bad.

-Absolute proofs don't exist in the real world. There are things where theirs an overwhelming body of evidence for. Thats why I use hypothesese and theories for 2 different thing.Evolution is a theory, life originating from amino acids is a hypothesis. They don't carry te same lvl of certainty. Religion however does claim absolute truths. First the sun and moon where gods, then the Egyptain Paroa was a god too, then there where gods we where resposible for, the seasons, crops and had affairs (Greco, Romans, Norse Mytholigy), then there was only 1 God, then there was 1 God but he had Saints, etc,etc. I'm oversimplyfiing of course and I skipped about a 100 variations on the theme. All of those belief systems had and have 1 thing in common, it's followers all knew that they where right.
-I'm really getting sick of that sediment argument. I'm either not explaining it correctly or you purposfully refuse to accept it. 1 more time, sediment layers ,and pressure of the layers on top, turn the sediment into rock, it gets incorporated into the earths crust, wich is 40 to 60 km deep. That same crust also gets subducted.

• Continuous chalk on the cliffs on either side of the Channel containing no major faulting, as observed by Verstegan in 1698.
• Four geological strata, marine sediments laid down 90–100 million years ago; pervious upper and middle chalk above slightly pervious lower chalk and finally impermeable Gault Clay. A sandy stratum, glauconitic marl (tortia), is in between the chalk marl and gault clay.
• A 25–30-metre (82–98 ft) layer of chalk marl (French: craie bleue) in the lower third of the lower chalk appeared to present the best tunnelling medium. The chalk has a clay content of 30–40% providing impermeability to groundwater yet relatively easy excavation with strength allowing minimal support. Ideally the tunnel would be bored in the bottom 15 metres (49 ft) of the chalk marl, allowing water inflow from fractures and joints to be minimised, but above the gault clay that would increase stress on the tunnel lining and swell and soften when wet.[50]

that's an exert of the building of the chunnel as you can note there's chalk there, just like the cliffs of dover and it also refers to the hardened sediment layers.
The Chalk Group is a European stratigraphic unit deposited during the late Cretaceous Period. It forms the famous White Cliffs of Dover in Kent, England, as well as their counterparts of the Cap Blanc Nez on the other side of the Dover Strait. The Champagne region of France is mostly underlain by chalk deposits, which contain artificial caves used for wine storage. Some of the highest chalk cliffs in the world occur at Jasmund National Park in Germany and at Møns Klint in Denmark – both once formed a single island.
Oh look more chalk lol.
-So you are saying you don't find the verses you where reffering to vague, but at the same time, by your own admission theoligians don't agree on their meaning.
If something isn't vague why can experts not agree on it's meaning? And that brought me to my Astrology bit and me pointing out that Astrology works too by using vague wording where all ppl who read it can get something from that might be reffering to them. As I just mentioned the other day to littlenipper the pope accepts evolution. So he obviously thinks the bible is meant to be read differently then you do. If the bible isn't vague how can that be?
- Lol. Wegener was a Christian but not a Creasionist. Einstein was a Christian and so was Kepler and Galileo and even Darwin said he didn't deny the existence of God. That's why Creasionism is so bad. All these ppl,giants of science didn't let their beliefs trump the scientific method," the result are the results and my religious beliefs aren't tied to that". What you propose and indeed have done is try to cast doubt on all of their work, because they interfere with your religious beliefs.

Einstein of course was jewish but it still applies of course.