Statistical Evidence that Evolution and Religion are Accepted

[Danarch]

I would have to disagree with you, disturbingly.

I grew up in Oklahoma, and currently make my home in Texas. There are a LOT of people who buy into a 6,000 year old Earth, critters and all. Some of them even manage to be deacons at Southern Baptist church's and science teachers at the same time. Amazing, and sad, but true.

Oh, and I wish you were right, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that the portion of YEC'ers out there is as small as some might imagine (or hope.)

B.

Seems to be problem only the US has. A few people in different countries on here have remarked as to why this is even an issue. I think that the group is small when compared globlly.

 

[darkendless]

for it is impossible that the earth was covered in water.

There was once a world wherein one massive continent, which was surrounded by water, was broken up into seven tectonic plates. The Jurassic age in which the 3 million odd year rule of the old upright walking reptile, “The Great Dinosaurs,” was brought to its finish by what is thought to have been a cataclysmic comet collision with the earth some 145 million years ago when the super continent of Pangaea began to break up, separating the continental tectonic plates and the overall sea level began to rise, which ushered in the cretaceous period which came to its close about 65 million years ago.

Theory, no evidence. Its a push to get anyone in the science field to accept a "cataclysmic collision."

During the period of the cretaceous age, the sea levels were about 80 feet or 25 metres above current levels, and this was before the Tertiary period which closed about 2 million years ago, during which period all the mountain ranges such as the Himalayan mountains etc, were formed from the collision of the continental Tectonic plates, and apart from a few high land masses that were pushed up by earth’s internal pressures, those few small areas of land protruding above the surface of the seemingly endless ocean would have been insignificant.

We have been respirators for almost 2 billion years. It seems strange that we can't live in/under water even though you say the world was covered in water. Given that, there isn't enough water in the world for such an event to occur, sorry.

The otherwise reasonably flat mountain less surfaces of the drifting continents, would have been under water, which is something that must be considered in view of the fact that in scripture we are dealing with a very, very condensed record of earth’s history. The only animals to survive would have been some birds, insects and small mammals, “the ancestors of human beings,” who were able to exist on small floating islands of debris until they could adapt to the watery environment and one day crawl out onto one of the few land islands that could sustain life.

Incorrect. Once again, where is this water comming from? The only way such cloud generation could occur would have been a very very hot atmosphere which would have killed everything anyway.

The Biblical flood that occurred some 4 thousand years ago was simply representative of the much earlier flood that covered the entire earth and wiped out all land animals, which could not return to and adapt to the watery world of the long cretaceous period when the world was covered with water.

Heresey. Theists should be banned from using the words; representative or non-literal because its equivalent to moving the goal posts when their position is defeated.

Why cant you people understand that not enough water existed to cover the planet under and circumstances?

 

[S-word]

Theory, no evidence. Its a push to get anyone in the science field to accept a "cataclysmic collision."

We have been respirators for almost 2 billion years. It seems strange that we can't live in/under water even though you say the world was covered in water. Given that, there isn't enough water in the world for such an event to occur, sorry.



Incorrect. Once again, where is this water comming from? The only way such cloud generation could occur would have been a very very hot atmosphere which would have killed everything anyway.



Heresey. Theists should be banned from using the words; representative or non-literal because its equivalent to moving the goal posts when their position is defeated.

Why cant you people understand that not enough water existed to cover the planet under and circumstances?

Don’t kid yourself mate, If all the ice on Antarctica alone were to melt, the ocean level would rise by some two hundred feet, and as most of our mountain ranges were created by the collision of the tectonic plates since the cretaceous age, there wouldn’t have been too much land above the ocean surface.

 

[logician]

A lot more of the world has been covered by water than now, but not 6000 years ago.

 

[darkendless]

Don’t kid yourself mate, If all the ice on Antarctica alone were to melt, the ocean level would rise by some two hundred feet, and as most of our mountain ranges were created by the collision of the tectonic plates since the cretaceous age, there wouldn’t have been too much land above the ocean surface.

Kid myself? I assure you i've been educated far too well to "kid myself."

The north pole melting is no big deal (as far as sea levels are concerned) because its a large chunk of ice and its displacement of water rises sea levels anyway.

However, 5% or so of Antarctica has melted already and we've seen sea levels rise how far?
Scare tactics at best.

What will it take to make you realise there was never a global flood?

 

[S-word]

A lot more of the world has been covered by water than now, but not 6000 years ago.

Agreed my friend.

 

[S-word]

Kid myself? I assure you i've been educated far too well to "kid myself."

The north pole melting is no big deal (as far as sea levels are concerned) because its a large chunk of ice and its displacement of water rises sea levels anyway.

However, 5% or so of Antarctica has melted already and we've seen sea levels rise how far?
Scare tactics at best.

What will it take to make you realise there was never a global flood?

A lot more than your limited education matey.

You said that there was not enough water on this planet to cover the earth which was reasonably flat before the cretaceous age, the Ice on Antarctica is 2,133 metres or 7,000 feet thick, flatten out the land surface, melt all the ice on Antarctica and guess how much water the earth would be covered by, and so I repeat, “Don’t kid yourself mate.”

 

[darkendless]

A lot more than your limited education matey.

You said that there was not enough water on this planet to cover the earth which was reasonably flat before the cretaceous age, the Ice on Antarctica is 2,133 metres or 7,000 feet thick, flatten out the land surface, melt all the ice on Antarctica and guess how much water the earth would be covered by, and so I repeat, “Don’t kid yourself mate.”

During the cretaceous period, large portions of the continents were covered in water, yes, everyone knows that, but there were no significant poles at this time. The climates were warm. Thus, the sea levels of this time were the maximum attainable. A lot of rifting and uplifting occured in this period and in the jurrasic period. FYI this means a lot of mountain building.

I would conditionally agree with you assuming what was meant by "global flood" was localised flooding in low lying areas. Like i've said about 40000 times in this thread, if the globe was covered in water, why don't our geological research teams find water voids in soil taken from the outback of Australia at an approximate depth of 2m? A global flood would have saturated such soil and significant voids would exist within the soil as it dried out and the water evaproated becomming air. Just a little bit strange to me.

Just curious, you know.... but then again i'm not an expert

Why are you talking about a time period 65million years ago when you're trying to support a biblical flood? Is that the best you can do?

 

[Tiapan]

I am sure your talking of the Pangaean rock formations of Western Australia where you are correct about the lack of evidence of a global flood, but in fairness the whole Nullabor is a huge limestone Kaste, formed from ancient coral reefs in a shallow sea, which were obviously under water. I know I dive in the huge underwater caves out there. Ayers Rock is also sedimentary in origin but the geological times they occured are completely different and not simultaneous.

Cheers

 

[darkendless]

I am sure your talking of the Pangaean rock formations of Western Australia where you are correct about the lack of evidence of a global flood, but in fairness the whole Nullabor is a huge limestone Kaste, formed from ancient coral reefs in a shallow sea, which were obviously under water. I know I dive in the huge underwater caves out there. Ayers Rock is also sedimentary in origin but the geological times they occured are completely different and not simultaneous.

Cheers

Over here in the East in QLD we have massive areas that probably havn't been disturbed in 10 million years.
When it comes to the Australian climte (my only experience), most areas show signs of flooding. However, often the difference in time can be thousands of years. If you dig up a soil sample from where i live at the very foot of the great diving range, then travel 150 - 400 km inland and dig another soil sample, the difference in flood patterns is massive.
From what i've seen in

 

[S-word]

Over here in the East in QLD we have massive areas that probably havn't been disturbed in 10 million years.

When it comes to the Australian climte (my only experience), most areas show signs of flooding. However, often the difference in time can be thousands of years. If you dig up a soil sample from where i live at the very foot of the great diving range, then travel 150 - 400 km inland and dig another soil sample, the difference in flood patterns is massive.
From what i've seen in

Then perhaps you've been to 'Big Bend' and seen the oceanic fossils there, 'Big Bend' is just down the road from Charters Towers which is called 'The top of the World'.

quote=darkendless; Like i've said about 40000 times in this thread,

My, my, don't we exaggerate?

 

[darkendless]

Then perhaps you've been to 'Big Bend' and seen the oceanic fossils there, 'Big Bend' is just down the road from Charters Towers which is called 'The top of the World'.

quote=darkendless; Like i've said about 40000 times in this thread,

My, my, don't we exaggerate?

Exaggeration shows how ******* annoying it is to have to repeat myself more than 3 or 4 times. Care to check out the Noah's Ark thread? We've run short of people to attack for the "beliefs" in floods which never happened or happened hundreds of thousands of years apart.
Then again, i wouldn't expect fundamentalists to accept science anyway, counterproductive for them.

I've heard of the Big Bend up by Townsville is it? I remember hearing that it was formed only about 360 million years ago, the same time as the Tweed Peninsula where i live.

 

[David M]

A lot more than your limited education matey.

You said that there was not enough water on this planet to cover the earth which was reasonably flat before the cretaceous age, the Ice on Antarctica is 2,133 metres or 7,000 feet thick, flatten out the land surface, melt all the ice on Antarctica and guess how much water the earth would be covered by, and so I repeat, “Don’t kid yourself mate.”

Really? A 66m rise in sea level would not cover that much of the land today considering that the average elevation of the land on the earth's surface is 840m. Even for pangea there would have been mountain ranges formed by the tectonic plates when they moved together to join up into a super continent.

The site below (that is not pro global warming) has some illustrations of how the world would look).

Can't post a link yet but search for "What If All the Ice Melts?" Myths and Realities at
johnstonsarchive.net

Thats hardly covering the whole planet.

 

[Danarch]

Even for pangea there would have been mountain ranges formed by the tectonic plates when they moved together to join up into a super continent.

I said the same thing in another thread. S-Word didn't believe me.

 

[S-word]

S-word: Well, me holidays are over and here we go again.
Darkendless: Exaggeration shows how ******* annoying it is to have to repeat myself more than 3 or 4 times. Care to check out the Noah's Ark thread? We've run short of people to attack for the "beliefs" in floods which never happened or happened hundreds of thousands of years apart.
Then again, i wouldn't expect fundamentalists to accept science anyway, counterproductive for them.

I've heard of the Big Bend up by Townsville is it? I remember hearing that it was formed only about 360 million years ago, the same time as the Tweed Peninsula where i live.

S-word: How annoying is it to have to listen to your continuous exaggerations. According to the most accepted scientific theory, and remember, everything we quote from the scientific community in relation to this subject is pure theory: in the carboniferous period which is supposed to have lasted from 362-200 million years ago, during which, as the theory goes, the earth was dominated by the continents; Laurenta, Angaraland and Gondwanaland, Australia hadn’t even been formed, let alone the Great Dividing Range and the Tweed Peninsula.

According to one theory the Great Dividing Range was formed by uplift during the Pliocene (10 million to 2 million years ago) and the Pleistocene periods (2 million years to 10,000 years ago). As the range did not form from one single geological event and even if we accept that it was formed 10 million years ago, this is 350 million years after your exaggerated time line of 360 million years.

During the Cretaceous period, 145-65 million years ago the fossilised corals and oceanic animal life that is found on the top of the Great divide which could have been formed as early as only 10,000 years ago, were then living on the flat ocean floor, which ocean at that time covered the entire earth apart from a few high points. ___________________________________________________________________

David M: Really? A 66m rise in sea level would not cover that much of the land today
S-word: The operative word here, being TODAY.

David M: considering that the average elevation of the land on the earth's surface is 840m.
S-word: The average elevation of the land on the earth's surfaceTODAY is 840m, but take away all the mountain ranges that have formed in the last 145 million years, and calculate the erosion of those mountain ranges that were formed with the creation of Pangea and you will find that this was not the case during the Cretaceous period when the ocean levels were said to be some 80 feet higher than the ocean levels of TODAY.

David M: Even for pangea there would have been mountain ranges formed by the tectonic plates when they moved together to join up into a super continent.

S-word: Correct! by the beginning of the Triassic period 245 million years ago, all three supposed major continents had joined to create the hypothetical super continent of Pangea and mountains would have been formed in the first few million years by the collision of the tectonic plates.

Those mountains would have ceased to rise and begun to erode away millions and millions of years before the beginning of the Jurassic period 208 million years ago when the hypothetical super continent of Pangea began to break up, by the middle of the 80 million year Cretaceous period (145-65 million years) some 90 million years after Pangea began to break up, the rain, the winds, the ice ages and glaciers, the rising ocean levels of the Cretaceous period, would have worked havoc on those ancient mountains and by the end of the Cretaceous period 140 million years after the breaking up of Pangea, there would not be too much land left above the ocean surface which was some 80 feet higher than today.

David M: Thats hardly covering the whole planet.
S-word: Pretty much so mate, pretty much so.
Just in case you cannot accept that the mountains formed in the creation of the hypothetical super continent of Pangea could have eroded away, let’s look at another scientific theory: apparently, some billion years ago, the Aravallis, whose eroded remnants are visible around Deli, formed a chain higher than the Himalayas today. Over millions of years these mountains suffered the forces of erosion and their sediments were deposited in the Tethyan Ocean.

It was during the Cretaceous age that India began its northward movement, on a collision course with the Eurasian continent. The Himalayas are the youngest of today’s mountain ranges; the gradual rise of the Himalayas is still in its growing stage, and over the last million years it has risen over 5,000 feet, Mt Everest alone has risen some 10 metres over the past hundred years. The stupendous upthrust of the earth’s crust, created this mountain range that contains all the worlds mountains over 7,000 feet and the numerous fossil finds that can be dated with some accuracy, provide evidence of the comparatively young age of the Himalayas.

But one day the rising of the earth will cease and the years, the sun, the wind, the rain, the future ice ages with their glaciers, will erode the Himalayas as nature has done with mountain ranges more spectacular than they. ___________________________________________________________________________

Danarch: I said the same thing in another thread. S-Word didn't believe me.
S-word: And what makes you believe that I should believe anything that you believe old matey?

 

[Jose Fly]

It's always amusing to see creationists argue that tectonic plates can just flow around the globe over incredibly short periods of time, and that entire mountain ranges can form during the same period.

Apparently the fact that such geologic activity would generate enough heat to boil off the oceans many times over (and of course nuke all life, including Noah et al.) seems to never occur to them.

But then, reality never was a friend of creationists.

 

[Willamena]

It's always amusing to see creationists argue that tectonic plates can just flow around the globe over incredibly short periods of time, and that entire mountain ranges can form during the same period.

But look how fast they move! (better with sound off)

YouTube - The Early Earth and Plate Tectonics

 

[darkendless]

S-word: Well, me holidays are over and here we go again.


S-word: How annoying is it to have to listen to your continuous exaggerations. According to the most accepted scientific theory, and remember, everything we quote from the scientific community in relation to this subject is pure theory: in the carboniferous period which is supposed to have lasted from 362-200 million years ago, during which, as the theory goes, the earth was dominated by the continents; Laurenta, Angaraland and Gondwanaland, Australia hadn’t even been formed, let alone the Great Dividing Range and the Tweed Peninsula.

Rock geology will disagree with you. The rocks found there are that old. If you don't like the estimation get out of your house because nothing is safe.

The way you talk about theories is somewhat cynnical in appearance. I could be wrong but it appears you don't ackownledge what i say even if i am right. I wouldn't be suprised, its a common trait of religious people in general. I'm not spilling garbage here champ, you're the one having to research on the internet. The only way it is a "theory" to you is because you're copy+pasting whatever you can find.

According to one theory the Great Dividing Range was formed by uplift during the Pliocene (10 million to 2 million years ago) and the Pleistocene periods (2 million years to 10,000 years ago). As the range did not form from one single geological event and even if we accept that it was formed 10 million years ago, this is 350 million years after your exaggerated time line of 360 million years.

West of Toowomba (spelling) where a highway upgrade was being completed about 4 years ago i think, don't have the report anymore showed a heck of a lot of folding. Folding is plastic deformation which usually occurs over a longer period of time for dense rock strata. You could probably make an arguement that this area was an isolated case, i don't know, but i guess the best shot is pointing out the amount of weathered sandstone in the area.

During the Cretaceous period, 145-65 million years ago the fossilised corals and oceanic animal life that is found on the top of the Great divide which could have been formed as early as only 10,000 years ago, were then living on the flat ocean floor, which ocean at that time covered the entire earth apart from a few high points.

They've found Crustaceans on K2, does that mean it was underwater as well? My guess is that the fossils existed before uplift occured and were pushed up with the earth.

But hey, what do i know right. I'm just spewing out my theories with no credentials.

 

[S-word]

Darkendless: Rock geology will disagree with you. The rocks found there are that old. If you don't like the estimation get out of your house because nothing is safe.

S-word: They would be wouldn’t they? Considering that those rocks were the rocks of Gondwanaland long before Australia or even the super continent of Pangea was ever formed.

Darkendless: The way you talk about theories is somewhat cynnical in appearance.

S-word: The way you talk about religious theology is more than cynical in appearance.

Darkendless: I could be wrong but it appears you don't ackownledge what i say even if i am right.

S-word: And where have you been correct?

Darkendless: I wouldn't be suprised, its a common trait of religious people in general. I'm not spilling garbage here champ, you're the one having to research on the internet. The only way it is a "theory" to you is because you're copy+pasting whatever you can find.

S-word: Yea, how wonderful is the internet, once I had to do all my research from the library, only to find on returning home I needed more information. But nowadays, I simply sit at me computer and call up whichever book or encyclopaedia that I need and although I take in what I have read and repeat that which is of any relevance to my posts, I do not copy and paste. By the way, did you have to climb K2 to discover that there were fossilised crustaceans up there that were living on the ocean floor during the Cretaceous period before the mountain was formed by the uplift of the land, or did you discover this little gem of information from research, on the internet perhaps?

Darkendless: They've found Crustaceans on K2, does that mean it was underwater as well?

S-word: Yup, before it was forced up from the ocean floor.

Darkendless: My guess is that the fossils existed before uplift occured and were pushed up with the earth.

S-word: And what in heaven’s name have I been saying all this time, the fossils on top of those mountains are evidence that the land that was forced upward in the formation of those mountains was once the flat floor of the ocean that once covered the greater majority of the earth’s surface.

Darkendless: But hey, what do i know right. I'm just spewing out my theories with no credentials.
S-word: Aren’t we all? Any person with the credentials to speak in depth on these subjects would not bother to come onto this forum to talk to mugs like you and me.

 

[S-word]

It's always amusing to see creationists argue that tectonic plates can just flow around the globe over incredibly short periods of time, and that entire mountain ranges can form during the same period.

Apparently the fact that such geologic activity would generate enough heat to boil off the oceans many times over (and of course nuke all life, including Noah et al.) seems to never occur to them.

But then, reality never was a friend of creationists.

Are you implying that the tectonic plates do not flow around the globe and 362 million years ago, when the earth was dominated by the continents; Laurenta, Angaraland and Gondwanaland, is a short period of time relative to the 14 billion years of earth's existence?

Do you believe as do I, that in the beginning there was a singularity that has become all that exists within this universal body, in fact has become this universal body, and that what we originated from, has developed a mind that is capable of comprehending mind?

Perhaps you may also be able to accept the scientific theory that one day this universe will burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth, into the yarning abyss or black hole from which it originated, where the tremendous gravitational force, will crush all this universal body back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot and infinitesimally small primordial atom from which it originated, only to burst forth once again in the resurrection of this universe which will have descended into the apparently bottomless pit, from which it would seem, there is no return?