PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution theory
       Christians should accept the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
LEssu

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The following film I have made explains why Christians should accept the evolution theory:

Creationism vs Evolution


 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 5:09 PM on September 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see the video concerns itself mostly with validating dating techniques.

The thing is, I think you would be hard pressed to find an astronomer who believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old - not to mention any serious geologist (I don't count Steve Austin or Henry Morris as serious geologists).  Evidence from both cosmology and geology clearly indicate that the earth has been around for billions of years.  The universe has been around even longer.  

This is not at all an issue in the scientific community.  

YEC just make themselves look silly sprouting their views of a young earth/universe.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:57 PM on September 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't count Steve Austin or Henry Morris as serious geologists


I don't count any geologist that believes that the earth is older than 10 000 years to be a serious geologist....
Now that's silly -in other words anyone who opposes your belief system can't be serious. So you then make a philisophical choice to reject them without finding out why they believe something other than what you believe. At least we know that your choice is philisophical or else based on a popularity count.

How popular is it with evolution indoctrinated people? Not at all popular. Oh well then it can't be true.

This is not at all an issue in the scientific community.


Actually it is and as evolution becomes more and more suspect, it wil become more and more of an issue. There are far more YEC's in academia than you acknowledge. The problem is that their viewpoint is not the popular one - you know like geocentrism and heliocentrism and Galileo all over again - but its popularity status does not make it untrue or unworthy of a hearing.

What we've got here is the Scopes trial turned on its head - then you weren't allow to teach evolution, now you're not allowed to teach or believe anything but evolution, otherwise you are relieved of your post or taken to court as punishment.

Dating techniques have unprovable assumptions - lots of them -evolutionists would like their precious dating techniques to be true but that does not take away the assumptions. Without those radiometric 'ages,' evolution can't be true, so of course you'll have to fight to keep people believing in them.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:07 AM on September 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:07 AM on September 11, 2009 :

Dating techniques have unprovable assumptions - lots of them -evolutionists would like their precious dating techniques to be true but that does not take away the assumptions. Without those radiometric 'ages,' evolution can't be true, so of course you'll have to fight to keep people believing in them.


The great antiquity of the earth was established in the late 1700's, long before radioactivity was discovered or Darwin was even born.  It was concluded by creationist geologists with a biblical mindset,who went looking for evidence of the flood, and found none.

Go to the John Day Fossil Beds, and see for yourself, layers of forests, complete with roots, animal burrows, earthworm tracks, etc., interlaced with volcanic ash deposits, also with roots growing into them.  Don't bother searching the creationist literature for an explanation of it from a flood perspective, there is none and they stay away from there.

We both have the same facts, go look at them yourself.

Edit: Actually, I'm seeing that the Creation Research Society provides it's own visitor's guide to John Day.  It would be interesting to see how they handle it, if I see it a used book store I'll pick it up.

(Edited by Apoapsis 9/11/2009 at 8:19 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:13 AM on September 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

The great antiquity of the earth was established in the late 1700's, long before radioactivity was discovered or Darwin was even born.  


Established how? How do you look at something and establish its age? There’s a philosophy hidden there somewhere.
Radiometric dating only helped justify what evolutionists had already decided -which it's why it is their dating method of choice (excluding all others). After all how can you have evolution without billions of years!

It was concluded by creationist geologists with a biblical mindset


Well that’s strange since that’s not how people with a Biblical mindset work. You see, the ones that see the Bible as the ultimate truth, the Word of God, use the Bible as their authority, not the words of men. Obviously it was religionists of a different stripe that decided to interpret things extrabiblically. I know that there were always actual Biblical men of science that continued to refuse the interpretation of vast age for the earth. Just because somebody goes to a church, does not make him a Christian in any real sense. I know that personally because I was brought up in the Anglican church. I might just as well have attended a morgue, so dead was the truth in that place. There might have been some true believers in there somewhere but I never saw them and that really helped me to reject Christianity. Darwin’s father wanted Darwin to be a country parson but that was only because it was a ‘respectable’ profession not because it meant anything to him personally. Darwin’s father was an atheist after all so why would he bother suggesting such a curious thing to his son? Yes there are believers and there are traditionalists in the church and since most people used to go to church, it’s quite understandable that for some it was a dead traditional thing that they did without conviction. Those were the ‘Christians’ that changed the earth into an old planet simply by looking at the rocks and seeing age.
who went looking for evidence of the flood, and found none.


My point exactly. They didn’t believe that the Bible was the Word of God in the first place so of course they couldn’t see signs of a flood. People that can’t see signs of a flood don’t want to.

Go to the John Day Fossil Beds, and see for yourself, layers of forests, complete with roots, animal burrows, earthworm tracks, etc., interlaced with volcanic ash deposits, also with roots growing into them.


In what way do these things contradict a flood?

Don't bother searching the creationist literature for an explanation of it from a flood perspective, there is none and they stay away from there.


Somehow I doubt that. Having never heard about the place nor the details I’m not in any position to comment.

Actually, I'm seeing that the Creation Research Society provides it's own visitor's guide to John Day.  


Now that’s more likely!






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:18 AM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:18 AM on September 12, 2009 :
Apoapsis

The great antiquity of the earth was established in the late 1700's, long before radioactivity was discovered or Darwin was even born.  


Established how? How do you look at something and establish its age?


Thermodynamics.  The first crude estimates of cooling rates put the earth's age at many 10s of thousands of years.  As the science and mathematics of thermodynamics improved, that estimate grew to 100s of millions of years, but that was before radioactivity was discovered which would provide an internal heat source to the earth.

There’s a philosophy hidden there somewhere.
Radiometric dating only helped justify what evolutionists had already decided -which it's why it is their dating method of choice (excluding all others). After all how can you have evolution without billions of years!


A few hundreds of millions is sufficient to satisfy the biology, but not the geology.


It was concluded by creationist geologists with a biblical mindset


Well that’s strange since that’s not how people with a Biblical mindset work. You see, the ones that see the Bible as the ultimate truth, the Word of God, use the Bible as their authority, not the words of men. Obviously it was religionists of a different stripe that decided to interpret things extrabiblically. I know that there were always actual Biblical men of science that continued to refuse the interpretation of vast age for the earth. Just because somebody goes to a church, does not make him a Christian in any real sense. I know that personally because I was brought up in the Anglican church. I might just as well have attended a morgue, so dead was the truth in that place. There might have been some true believers in there somewhere but I never saw them and that really helped me to reject Christianity. Darwin’s father wanted Darwin to be a country parson but that was only because it was a ‘respectable’ profession not because it meant anything to him personally. Darwin’s father was an atheist after all so why would he bother suggesting such a curious thing to his son? Yes there are believers and there are traditionalists in the church and since most people used to go to church, it’s quite understandable that for some it was a dead traditional thing that they did without conviction. Those were the ‘Christians’ that changed the earth into an old planet simply by looking at the rocks and seeing age.
who went looking for evidence of the flood, and found none.


My point exactly. They didn’t believe that the Bible was the Word of God in the first place so of course they couldn’t see signs of a flood. People that can’t see signs of a flood don’t want to.


No, they fully expected to find evidence for the flood.  It wasn't there.

Go to the John Day Fossil Beds, and see for yourself, layers of forests, complete with roots, animal burrows, earthworm tracks, etc., interlaced with volcanic ash deposits, also with roots growing into them.


In what way do these things contradict a flood?


You cannot grow a forest to maturity multiple times within the one year of a flood.  They recognized that.  These are not just randomly strewn timbers, these are layers of soil showing rooted plants, with insect and animal burrows showing an active living ecosystem.

Don't bother searching the creationist literature for an explanation of it from a flood perspective, there is none and they stay away from there.


Somehow I doubt that. Having never heard about the place nor the details I’m not in any position to comment.

Actually, I'm seeing that the Creation Research Society provides it's own visitor's guide to John Day.  


Now that’s more likely!


It will go right beside my copy of Gerardius Bouw's "Geocentric Bible".  I understand that in biblical debates, the geocentrics always win against their backsliding heliocentric YEC brothers.  If you really hold a biblical position Lester, you need to be geocentric.

The Earth is Not Moving

  More, Creationists need to be reminded that Copernicanism is a pure Origins Issue, that is to say, a Creation Week issue, just as surely as Darwinism is a pure Origins and Creation Week Issue.   Jesus the Creator (Col.1:16; Eph.3:9; etc.) either created a sun going around the earth (as plain Scripture declares, and all known facts confirm), or He created an earth going around the sun, as not only evolutionary scientists declare--but, lamentably, also nearly all of their Creationist adversaries! Both of these models cannot be The Truth. One model is Absolutely True and the other is Absolutely False (exactly as it is with ex nihilo creation and evolutionism!). No compromise. No quarter. No need for either.

. . .

  When all is said that can be said on this matter, the fact remains that the Bible--from start to finish--teaches a non-moving earth.  There are no heliocentricity verses in the Bible.  None.  All efforts to find Scriptural support for heliocentricity are vain attempts to make the Bible conform with long age Copernicanism and all that rests upon it, and thus justify a "Theistic Copernicanism" position that cannot be justified. For the Creationist, this is the ultimate self-defeating irony. The long ages required by his evolutionary adversary are being supplied by his own persistent overt and covert support (or indifference to) Copernicanism and his refusal to recognize the symbiotic relationship between the two! (Ardent Copernicanism promoter and lifelong dabbler in witchcraft, Johannes Kepler, was also promoting evolutionism over 200 years before Darwin...and defining the gravitational nonsense about tides, etc., {which Leibnitz called occult} fifty years before Newton! HERE.) Little wonder that this most recent effort to find a real verse or passage in Scripture that could be construed to support heliocentricity has been seized upon! But this effort too is a flop. Face it, Creationists: The Bible teaches a non-moving earth throughout with no contradictions.

  That fact means that there are two choices for the heretofore unflinching Creationist devoted to Bible inerrancy who has nevertheless resisted the Bible’s plain teaching that it is the sun and not the earth which is moving and providing day and night, etc.: 1) Bow the knee to the unsubstantiated and vulnerable claims of the physical scientists who declare heliocentricity a fact (while you continue to oppose the biological scientists who claim evolution is a fact!), and--knowing that the Bible refutes heliocentricity--stop claiming to believe in Bible inerrancy; or; 2) Prayerfully lay aside pride and fear of worldly opprobrium, stand on the Scriptural and scientific evidence that supports a non-moving earth, and discover the joy of learning that the helicentricity model is just as much an unscientific bluff as is evolutionism (Jn.8:32)...and then become an even more confident believer in Bible inerrancy than you ever were!




(Edited by Apoapsis 9/12/2009 at 3:54 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:39 PM on September 12, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The first crude estimates of cooling rates put the earth's age at many 10s of thousands of years.


There I told you there'd be philosophy in there. No creator, earth starts as a molten mass and has to cool down from there. How do we know that?

A few hundreds of millions is sufficient to satisfy the biology


It would more than satisfy the biology because we still don't know that dinosaurs ever tried to fly and started to grow feathers while they were busy leaping off branches. I think reptiles are reptiles and birds are birds and they were created that way and all that we can really say for sure is that the created creatures can change within limits. That's the observable stuff. All the rest is philosophy and extrapolation.

No, they fully expected to find evidence for the flood.  It wasn't there.


But it is now so I wonder who was doing the investigation and what their prejudices were...

You cannot grow a forest to maturity multiple times within the one year of a flood.  They recognized that.  These are not just randomly strewn timbers, these are layers of soil showing rooted plants, with insect and animal burrows showing an active living ecosystem.


Well that's what you say and if that's so, you may even have a point but I'll still rather see what the creation research society sees and whether it is as evolutionists report it since I'm not going to be able to go there myself anytime soon. From what I know of the fossil record and biology, it's unlikely to change the big picture so I'll have to reserve judgement.

I understand that in biblical debates, the geocentrics always win against their backsliding heliocentric YEC brothers.


Well I know nothing of that argument. I didn't know they had debates like that and have never heard such argumentation.

If you really hold a biblical position Lester, you need to be geocentric.


I'm not going to go with the crowd for fun however. I'd have to be convinced that they have something to say that makes sense. I'll give it a read and see whether I should change my position or not.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:50 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:50 AM on September 13, 2009 :
The first crude estimates of cooling rates put the earth's age at many 10s of thousands of years.


There I told you there'd be philosophy in there. No creator, earth starts as a molten mass and has to cool down from there. How do we know that?


Because it's still molten inside, and the temperature can be measures at lava flows.  Enough information to do a crude calculation.



You cannot grow a forest to maturity multiple times within the one year of a flood.  They recognized that.  These are not just randomly strewn timbers, these are layers of soil showing rooted plants, with insect and animal burrows showing an active living ecosystem.


Well that's what you say and if that's so, you may even have a point but I'll still rather see what the creation research society sees and whether it is as evolutionists report it since I'm not going to be able to go there myself anytime soon. From what I know of the fossil record and biology, it's unlikely to change the big picture so I'll have to reserve judgement.


You've been shown this before:

If you look at the legend image, you'll find that the little symbols that look like roots indicate the presence of root trace fossils, so every one of those layers was a living ecosystem at some time.


I understand that in biblical debates, the geocentrics always win against their backsliding heliocentric YEC brothers.


Well I know nothing of that argument. I didn't know they had debates like that and have never heard such argumentation.

If you really hold a biblical position Lester, you need to be geocentric.


I'm not going to go with the crowd for fun however. I'd have to be convinced that they have something to say that makes sense. I'll give it a read and see whether I should change my position or not.


I think you'd be good at it Lester, I was first drawn into this debate when a couple of geocentrics spammed a kid's astronomy board so bad it had to be shut down.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:45 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you'd be good at it Lester, I was first drawn into this debate when a couple of geocentrics spammed a kid's astronomy board so bad it had to be shut down.


And the implication is.... that geocentrics are spiteful, hateful little trouble makers. Would that be all of them or just some of them?

I'm not seeing anything particularly convincing yet but sometimes you need more than one explanation, though the Bible verses seem pretty clear, but there again, I'll check my own Bible. This is a new topic for me, very strange but I know there's a lot of lying and deceiving going on out there so I wouldn't write it off as impossible. I'm only just starting to see how people deceive themselves before they go on to deceive others (often with the best of intentions I'm sure )



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:14 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No comment on the layers of forests?

Curio Bay New Zealand:


There is a nice image in a paper of a cross section of a hill in New Zealand showing 12 distinct layers of rooted stumps from the Jurassic, but I can't find it in public domain.  I can get you the reference if you are interested.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:49 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:14 AM on September 13, 2009 :

And the implication is.... that geocentrics are spiteful, hateful little trouble makers. Would that be all of them or just some of them?


Just some of them, Bouw has a PhD from Case Western Reserve.  He used to have a lot of material posted on his calculations showing geocentricity, but he took most of it down when I showed that it was meaningless mathematical gobbledygook meant to impress people who don't know math or physics.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:02 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a paragraph from the National Park's description of the John Day formation:

The climate here changed from warm and moist tropical and subtropical forests into cooler, drier grasslands over the course of 40 million years.  The plant and animal life changed as well.  The evolution of mammals can be followed here from early browsers and scavengers to dogs, cats, pigs, horses, camels, rhinos, and rodents. To these were added bears, bear-dogs, weasels, and a species of early elephant.  Finally the latest formation includes horses, sloths, rhinos, camels, peccaries, pronghorns, dogs, bears, looking more like what we are familiar with today.

Notice that it claims that the "evolution of mammals can be followed..."
It than describes different animals. So where are the transitional forms? With all of those continuous sedimentary layers stretching back some "40 million years" I find it curious that "early browsers and scavengers" can "evolve" into "dogs, cats, pigs...etc." without any evidential remains of this marked process.
Perhaps the description should say "the MIGRATION of mammals can be followed..."
Once again, as Lester has continuously pointed out, the the description of evidence is tainted by the presupposition.

I believe that sedimentary layering could occur in a valley over the course of decades or centuries and would show all of the characteristics described in the John Day Formation including the different plants and animals that repopulate the valley with each successive redepositing.

I also believe that this would be consistent with a post flood world of fresh sedimentation and disruptive climactic conditions that one would expect to find after a massive global cataclysm.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 11:06 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are declaring these deposits to be post-flood?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:13 AM on September 13, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I'm stating that they could be post flood.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 12:29 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2009 :
No, I'm stating that they could be post flood.

When do you believe the flood occurred?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:00 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2009 :
No, I'm stating that they could be post flood.


How many years does it take to grow a mature forest on a volcanic flow?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:32 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

evolutionists should all agree that the Grand Canyon you created by the gradual erosion of a small stream over a period of millions of years (according to wikipedia "A recent study places the origins of the canyon beginning some 17 million years ago")


so unless I am mistaken the layers of sediment must be Older than 17 million years. 2 billion year old Vishnu Schist at the bottom of the Inner Gorge upto 230 million year old Kaibab Limestone on the Rim to be precise


this image taken from a Pro-evolutionist web site specifies Exactly how old each layer is



If what I have said so far is true. then how is it that the sediment layers run with perfect contrast with each other for such long stretches?

am I meant to believe that over the course of 2 Billion years not a single tree or cactus took root?
not a single rabbit or field mouse dug a borrow?
no ants, spiders, scorpions, snakes, birds, worms, Coyotes or Foxes penetrated the surface in any way?

Heck, even a small meteorite could have disrupted the millimetre thin difference between one sediment layer and another.
true, a meteorite is a little less probable. but evolution is full of improbabilities


And there is another question.
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?
did all the plants and animals in the area just decide "hey, this soil is boring. lets change it to something else"

and a one millimetre difference!
this is a picture of the Sonoran Desert (location of Grand Canyon)
does it look like you could get a sediment layer ONE millimetre thick? the ground is too uneven





Creationists do have an answer to all of this, they call it: the flood

now, scientific speaking, lets hypothesise what would happen if a large amount of water Did flood that area.
the water would stir up a lot of sediments.
these sediments would then sink to the bottom of the water at a velocity proportional to the square of the grains diameter. (in other words, at different speeds)
as these sediments settle on the bottom they build up sediment layers.
trapped with these sediments on the bottom are shells, algae, and other plants and animals.
and finally as the water recedes, a large canyon is gouged into the newly formed sediment layers.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here.  You are incredulous, apparently.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:48 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Creationists do have an answer to all of this, they call it: the flood

now, scientific speaking, lets hypothesise what would happen if a large amount of water Did flood that area.
the water would stir up a lot of sediments.
these sediments would then sink to the bottom of the water at a velocity proportional to the square of the grains diameter. (in other words, at different speeds)
as these sediments settle on the bottom they build up sediment layers.
trapped with these sediments on the bottom are shells, algae, and other plants and animals.
and finally as the water recedes, a large canyon is gouged into the newly formed sediment layers.



OK, so you would say that the John Day Fossil beds were the result of the flood.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:00 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am saying that Creationists explanation holds water (no pun intended)
where as the evolutionists explanations still has too many inconsistancies that need to be cleared up

so I guess I am being incredulous (for those who can't be bothered looking it up. incredulous= the state of being skeptical or in disbelief)


and I had never heard of the John Day Fossil beds until now, so unless there is some peice of information I am unaware of, then yes. I would say that the John Day Fossil beds were the result of the flood.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 9:18 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anti-Evolutionist


Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a



Rate this post:
 Insightful Poignant Thought Provoking Comprehensive Funny Neutral Obfuscated Paltry Trite Off Topic Ambiguous    
I am saying that Creationists explanation holds water (no pun intended)
where as the evolutionists explanations still has too many inconsistancies that need to be cleared up


Note very many geologist would agree with you.  On the contrary, the geology of the Grand Canyon seems to be very well understood, and explained, by geologist.  Even those multi-colored rock layers that seem to puzzle you are well understood.

The Geology of the Grand Canyon

The different layers are made up of different sediments (limestone, sandstone, mud, shale, etc) as ocean levels changed, continents drifted, and climates changed.

Oh, and by the way, there are fossils to be found in the younger layers (Kaibab - 250 million years old) of rock - though no rabbit fossils have been found, I'll admit.  However, invertebrate fossils are there - brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lillies - you know, ocean critters.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:43 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 9:18 PM on September 14, 2009 :
and I had never heard of the John Day Fossil beds until now, so unless there is some peice of information I am unaware of, then yes. I would say that the John Day Fossil beds were the result of the flood.


So, you reach a conclusion before having any facts.

The John Day Fossil Bed National Monument is in Oregon.  Geologically it is interesting for showing around 80 paleosol horizons,  showing roots, worm burrows, animal burrows, and many fossils showing thriving ecosystems.  Volcanic activity has interlaced the beds with numerous ash and lava layers providing good material for radiometric dating.

Explaining this via a flood would be saying that dozens of forests grew on top of each other underwater over the course of a year.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:05 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, you reach a conclusion before having any facts.
NO
I reach a conclusion with the facts available to me.

I did say "I had never heard of the John Day Fossil beds until now". and that my conclusion is dependent on Wether or not "there is some piece of information I am unaware of"

the facts I was working with where:
a) in my previous post I was talking about creationisim describes the sediment layers (and fossils) of the Grand Canyon better than evolutionists.
b) you mention some fossil beds close to the Grand Canyon

so I put 2 and 2 together.


now that I have more information, I will agree with you. the John Day Fossil beds are NOT the result of the flood. but rather the result of repetitive volcanic activity covering up forests and plant life over a long period of time (not millions of years)

but what about the Grand Canyon?
orion gave a site that explains how the sediment layers could have formed. But how is it that 2 Billion years passed and there are no breaks in sediment layers?
all it would take is for one animal to dig into the ground to leave a mark, or a cactus to send its roots down...




and lastly, orion said
there are fossils to be found in the younger layers (Kaibab - 250 million years old) of rock - though no rabbit fossils have been found, I'll admit.  However, invertebrate fossils are there - brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lillies - you know, ocean critters.
so...um...how where there ocean critters there unless there was, you know, an ocean?

or perhaps a global flood?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:56 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anti-evolutionist
and lastly, orion said

there are fossils to be found in the younger layers (Kaibab - 250 million years old) of rock - though no rabbit fossils have been found, I'll admit.  However, invertebrate fossils are there - brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lillies - you know, ocean critters.


so...um...how where there ocean critters there unless there was, you know, an ocean?

or perhaps a global flood?


Ha ha ha - well, I have to confess, you scored a debating point there A-E.   I like your reply.  I don't agree with it, of course.  But it was a good reply.  I left myself wide open to that one.  :0)

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:08 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:08 PM on September 14, 2009 :
anti-evolutionist
and lastly, orion said

there are fossils to be found in the younger layers (Kaibab - 250 million years old) of rock - though no rabbit fossils have been found, I'll admit.  However, invertebrate fossils are there - brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lillies - you know, ocean critters.


so...um...how where there ocean critters there unless there was, you know, an ocean?

or perhaps a global flood?


Ha ha ha - well, I have to confess, you scored a debating point there A-E.   I like your reply.  I don't agree with it, of course.  But it was a good reply.  I left myself wide open to that one.  :0)




It's still just as bad of a problem. The ocean critters present in that rock aren't the same species of ocean critters we see today.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:05 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:32 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2009 :
No, I'm stating that they could be post flood.


How many years does it take to grow a mature forest on a volcanic flow?






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:30 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:32 PM on September 14, 2009 :
How many years does it take to grow a mature forest on a volcanic flow?


I don't know. Different rates I would imagine depending on climate etc. There seem to be forests growing up in Hawaiian flows that have occurred in the past 100 years.

How many of the John Day  layers are from volcanic flow?

Posted by Apoapsis at Mon September 14, 2009 - 10:05 PM
Explaining this via a flood would be saying that dozens of forests grew on top of each other underwater over the course of a year.


Not necessarily. Much of this layering could have occurred in the unstable post flood environment particularly in Oregon where glacial runoff was a major factor.

Of course debating geology is fruitless as we each have our preconceptions with which we interpret evidence.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:00 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Quote from timbrx at 12:29 PM on September 14, 2009 :
No, I'm stating that they could be post flood.

When do you believe the flood occurred?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:29 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the standard date is 2304BC.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:54 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:29 AM on September 15, 2009 :

When do you believe the flood occurred?


around the time of Noah ^_^



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:54 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:54 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 10:29 AM on September 15, 2009 :

When do you believe the flood occurred?


around the time of Noah ^_^



So are you saying that you don't know, or are you just trying to keep it a secret?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 5:40 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 5:40 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:54 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 10:29 AM on September 15, 2009 :
When do you believe the flood occurred?

around the time of Noah ^_^

So are you saying that you don't know, or are you just trying to keep it a secret?

neither actually
I was just trying to be funny

after a little research (gotta love the internet) I found that the usual consensus is as follows:
- the flood occurred some time between 3000BC and 2105 BC (although one date went as far as saying 5500 BC)
- the flood waters rose over 40 days and 40 nights
- Noah and others stayed in the Ark a little over 1 year


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:41 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there are fossils to be found in the younger layers (Kaibab - 250 million years old) of rock - though no rabbit fossils have been found, I'll admit.  However, invertebrate fossils are there - brachiopods, coral, mollusks, sea lillies - you know, ocean critters.

It's still just as bad of a problem. The ocean critters present in that rock aren't the same species of ocean critters we see today.


They may not be the same species however that's just a naming/ classification problem.
For example look at the living fossils.
A modern scallop called Aequipecten muscosus
looks pretty much identical to a dinosaur era scallop called Pseudopecten aequivalis. When I say 'pretty much identical' I mean it's really totally obvious that they haven't changed.
Another example (I have loads of these) is a dinosaur era scorpion fly Orthophlebia lithografica which looks, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the modern Scorpion fly Panorpa communis
If you'd like to look at all of these they are well documented in Dr Carl Werner's book "Living Fossils. " He did a whole lot more travelling  than Darwin ever did. He leaves it to the reader to decide what to think but photographs and names all the old and the new to show how they look next to each other.

Evolutionists seem to think that the differences are significant enough to warrant different genus and species names. Those that do not believe that macroevolution happened suggest that the naming of the fossils were motivated by belief in the theory of evolution, not by actual significant differences between the fossil and the living organisms.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 03:54 AM on September 16, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:54 AM on September 16, 2009 :
They may not be the same species however that's just a naming/ classification problem.
For example look at the living fossils.
A modern scallop called Aequipecten muscosus
looks pretty much identical to a dinosaur era scallop called Pseudopecten aequivalis. When I say 'pretty much identical' I mean it's really totally obvious that they haven't changed.
Another example (I have loads of these) is a dinosaur era scorpion fly Orthophlebia lithografica which looks, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the modern Scorpion fly Panorpa communis
If you'd like to look at all of these they are well documented in Dr Carl Werner's book "Living Fossils. "


Then if these are so similar, explain how by "hydrodynamic sorting" during the "flood", they came to be in different strata?

It's a much more obvious conclusion from the actual data that they lived at different times.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:16 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my explanation:
the unlucky ones got buried when the flood waters settled.
the lucky ones managed not to sink to the button until all of the dust has settled. allowing themselves to eat, breed, die, and eventually get berried on a higher strata layer.

I don't have any complex mathematics, interesting diagrams or informative websites to attach to my theory. but none the less, it does give an explanation to what happened


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:26 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:26 AM on September 22, 2009 :
my explanation:
the unlucky ones got buried when the flood waters settled.
the lucky ones managed not to sink to the button until all of the dust has settled. allowing themselves to eat, breed, die, and eventually get berried on a higher strata layer.

I don't have any complex mathematics, interesting diagrams or informative websites to attach to my theory. but none the less, it does give an explanation to what happened



So you are attributing the extreme order we see in the fossil record to chance?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:37 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They may not be the same species however that's just a naming/ classification problem.
For example look at the living fossils.
A modern scallop called Aequipecten muscosus
looks pretty much identical to a dinosaur era scallop called Pseudopecten aequivalis. When I say 'pretty much identical' I mean it's really totally obvious that they haven't changed.


You're right -- the 10+ years scientists spend at universities learning this stuff is completely bogus. Anyone with a high school diploma can do what they do.

Dude... It'd be just as funny if you said that man couldn't possibly fly an airplane because you can't jump that high, or that we couldn't possibly have landed on the moon because you're unable to do calculus. What you're suggesting is just... pathetic, truly.




(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/22/2009 at 12:43 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:41 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 12:37 AM on September 22, 2009 :
So you are attributing the extreme order we see in the fossil record to chance?

Evolutionists attribute the extreme order we see complex life forms, in DNA, and the existance of life itself to chance

I think as far as probabilities go, my explanation is more likely to happen


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:30 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you can attribute "extreme order", you have not looked closely at any of the results of the genome projects.  Cobbled together mess would be closer to it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:14 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

surely you can agree that life itself can come under the category of "extreme order"?
everything from the nervous system to the cardiovascular system, right down to the inner workings of a cell





-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:24 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:24 PM on September 22, 2009 :
surely you can agree that life itself can come under the category of "extreme order"?
everything from the nervous system to the cardiovascular system, right down to the inner workings of a cell


I consider life to be an extremely complex system, which I don't consider synonymous with order.  Look at how simple it is to correlate the fossils you expect to find in parallel layers of sediments, separated vertically by just a few feet, even if you move horizontally by miles or hundreds of miles.  Inspection of the strata of the earth led Georges Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) to propose an age of the earth up to millions of years.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:52 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:07 AM on September 11, 2009 :
I don't count Steve Austin or Henry Morris as serious geologists


I don't count any geologist that believes that the earth is older than 10 000 years to be a serious geologist....


So, you're a geologist too?  Wow...



Now that's silly -in other words anyone who opposes your belief system can't be serious.

It is not the belief system - it is their competence.

And their honesty - you may recall that I've mentioned Austin's lies before...



I admit I do make a philosophical choice when choosing whom to believe in matters in which I have little fisrt-hand knowledge - I choose not to put much stock in people who've been caught lying about how they became what they are.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:25 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Heck, even a small meteorite could have disrupted the millimetre thin difference between one sediment layer and another.
true, a meteorite is a little less probable. but evolution is full of improbabilities


You are so right.  I mean, it is obvious that millions of cubic miles of rushing flood run-off
produced this feature all at once no more than 4,500 years ago:



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:31 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:26 AM on September 22, 2009 :
my explanation:
the unlucky ones got buried when the flood waters settled.
the lucky ones managed not to sink to the button until all of the dust has settled. allowing themselves to eat, breed, die, and eventually get berried on a higher strata layer.

I don't have any complex mathematics, interesting diagrams or informative websites to attach to my theory. but none the less, it does give an explanation to what happened


Not a very good one.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:32 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:41 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from JimIrvine at 5:40 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 10:54 PM on September 15, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 10:29 AM on September 15, 2009 :
When do you believe the flood occurred?

around the time of Noah ^_^

So are you saying that you don't know, or are you just trying to keep it a secret?

neither actually
I was just trying to be funny

after a little research (gotta love the internet) I found that the usual consensus is as follows:
- the flood occurred some time between 3000BC and 2105 BC (although one date went as far as saying 5500 BC)
- the flood waters rose over 40 days and 40 nights
- Noah and others stayed in the Ark a little over 1 year



So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:35 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:54 AM on September 16, 2009 :
A modern scallop called Aequipecten muscosus
looks pretty much identical to a dinosaur era scallop called Pseudopecten aequivalis. When I say 'pretty much identical' I mean it's really totally obvious that they haven't changed.


Yeah, totally obvious because after all, EVERYONE knows that evolution ONLY works on gross morphology....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:36 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:41 AM on September 22, 2009 :
They may not be the same species however that's just a naming/ classification problem.
For example look at the living fossils.
A modern scallop called Aequipecten muscosus
looks pretty much identical to a dinosaur era scallop called Pseudopecten aequivalis. When I say 'pretty much identical' I mean it's really totally obvious that they haven't changed.


You're right -- the 10+ years scientists spend at universities learning this stuff is completely bogus. Anyone with a high school diploma can do what they do.

Dude... It'd be just as funny if you said that man couldn't possibly fly an airplane because you can't jump that high, or that we couldn't possibly have landed on the moon because you're unable to do calculus. What you're suggesting is just... pathetic, truly.




I only spent 9 years, myself, but hey - if some dude on the internet asserts something with a great deal of conviction because he read it on a YEC webgsite or in a YEC book, it clearly trumps anything some dumb 'scientist' might say...





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:38 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....

and evolution gives dates between 1 Million and 10 Billion years

But all very scientific and precise....


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:56 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E,

try reading Jerry Coyne's 'Why Evolution is Ture' - a very good into to the subject.  Then things might make a little more sense to you.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:51 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:56 PM on September 24, 2009 :
So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....

and evolution gives dates between 1 Million and 10 Billion years

But all very scientific and precise....


For the global Flood of Noah, science gives a date of never.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:15 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.