There is irrefutable evidence from Polonium halos that the rock layers of the Grand Canyon where all formed in a short time, the worldwide flood.

[SavedByTheLord]

What do you find unfactual exactly?

That I think you might like to try learning about the real world?

Rather than the flat one you think you presently inhabit?

Please try to post facts that support evolution and billions of years.
No one has any but you should try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please try to post facts that support evolution and billions of years.
No one has any but you should try.

But we do. I once again need to remind you that you do not understand even the basics of science, or even of debate. Any person that understands those concepts can see that you lost.

Denying facts does not make them go away. Your current tactic is to keep yourself willfully ignorant so that you can maintain that your delusions.

 

[blü 2]

Please try to post facts that support evolution and billions of years.
No one has any but you should try.

Here ─ the Big Bang
The Age of the Universe
Formation and evolution of the solar system
Earliest known forms of life on earth
Evolution and the Theory of Evolution

Now, do you still think the earth is flat and immovably fixed and the sun and stars go round it?

And is it still your view that the sky is a hard dome and the stars are affixed to it and if they come loose they'll fall to earth?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Robert Gentry

He's a young earth creationist. Here's some good advice - go to such people for nothing. Their agenda is to promote their faith, not to determine what is true about the world. Their values and methods are reprehensible:

"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. This line of argumentation is prone to outcome bias. To draw a non-religious comparison — pious fraud could be compared to a parent using the threat of Santa withholding presents, or delivering a lump of coal, if Santa should hear that the child in question has been naughty."

Here's more of those ethics and methods:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

Please read that chapter as well as the rest of the book if you can so that you can understand this completely.

You are also a young earth creationist. I already know why you recommend this book without even looking at it, and I already know that it will be full of misinformation and specious argumentation. It's creationist apologetics.

Here's a better idea. Why don't you read this: Lying for Jesus

And how about an example? From DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :

"But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it. For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans."

Here we have a dishonest argument, one that deceptively omits important information about human chromosome 2. I won't bother you with the science. And don't fail to notice the projection in the first sentence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

He's a young earth creationist. Here's some good advice - go to such people for nothing. Their agenda is to promote their faith, not to determine what is true about the world. Their values and methods are reprehensible:

"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. This line of argumentation is prone to outcome bias. To draw a non-religious comparison — pious fraud could be compared to a parent using the threat of Santa withholding presents, or delivering a lump of coal, if Santa should hear that the child in question has been naughty."

Here's more of those ethics and methods:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

You are also a young earth creationist. I already know why you recommend this book without even looking at it, and I already know that it will be full of misinformation and specious argumentation. It's creationist apologetics.

Here's a better idea. Why don't you read this: Lying for Jesus

And how about an example? From DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution :

"But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it. For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans."

Here we have a dishonest argument, one that deceptively omits important information about human chromosome 2. I won't bother you with the science. And don't fail to notice the projection in the first sentence.

And that proves that mankind cannot have a common descendant with apes.
Martin Luther had false beliefs.
And that verse is out of context and you cannot understand scripture.

 

[blü 2]

And that verse is out of context and you cannot understand scripture.

Sounds weird hearing you accuse anyone of not understanding scripture.

Tell me, what did you see when you looked over the edge of the flat earth and stared down? The sun going past in the night on its way to its rising place?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sounds weird hearing you accuse anyone of not understanding scripture.

Tell me, what did you see when you looked over the edge of the flat earth and stared down? The sun going past in the night on its way to its rising place?

I see earth Turning away from the direction of the sun.

 

[blü 2]

I see earth Turning away from the direction of the sun.

Well, I'm glad you enjoyed reading those links I set out for you that address the scientific questions you asked.

Keep this up and you'll find your understanding of reality has stepped out of its tiny dark cellar into the great big sunshiny outdoors!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And that proves that mankind cannot have a common descendant with apes.

You've just "proven" that you are easily deceived by creationist apologetics.

Martin Luther had false beliefs.

Agreed, but that irrelevant to the discussion. He believed that lying for Jesus was justified

And that verse is out of context

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

There is no relevant missing context. You could reproduce the entire chapter, and it wouldn't change the meaning of that sentence, which is what your criticism implies. The prime example is changing, "The fools says in his heart that there is no god" to "There is no god." The missing words show that the writer meant the opposite of what the words out of context imply the writer meant. That's not the case here. The missing context merely amplifies the point without otherwise changing it. Paul asks a rhetorical question. Nowhere does he call such lying immoral. He justifies it by noting that it is human nature. And Luther obviously didn't think that such lying was immoral just like today's creationist apologists like the one that fooled you about human evolution. He lied to you, and you believed him. That's a two-millennium+ history and tradition supporting pious fraud ("lying for Jesus").

And your guy Genty is yet another in an endless succession of people with those values, methods, and agenda, which is to say anything that might promote their incorrect, faith-based beliefs. People interested in truth - different agenda - are nothing like that - different values and methods - and have no interest in what such people say.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

So if I refer you to a published refutation of this claim of Gentry's, you'll admit you're wrong?

ah hang on there amigo...in the critique of his work cited I note the author of the critique states as evidence against the validity of Richards work...

"Gentry is a physicist, not a geologist"

Well here's the thing, have you not heard of Dr Andrew Snelling an Australian Geologist who also studies and presents work on Radio Halos as evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

Snelling goes into a lot more of the Geological record and has undertaken a number of research trips around the world looking at a lot more YEC supporting Geology in addition to his own studies of Radio Halos.

Just like any other YEC, Snelling gets unfairly trashed by naysayers.

Btw, what is awesome for me is the fact that Gentry was a Seventh Day Adventist. Its also another reason why other religious groups dumped on him...SDA's are unfairly called a cult by most other Christian denominations, so to have one of our own scientists being trashed isnt suprising.

Anyway, moving on... a link to start one journey into the works of Andrew Snelling is found below

Andrew A. Snelling - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[blü 2]

have you not heard of Dr Andrew Snelling an Australian Geologist who also studies and presents work on Radio Halos as evidence for Young Earth Creationism?

Nope. I gave up paying close attention to YECism after the trouncing their "science" and their integrity received in the Dover case 2005, inter alia leaving zero examples of "irreducible complexity" on the table ever after.

As for the Genesis flood, have YECS yet explained why

We do not find a single universal geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, the layer dating to a date in the last 10,000 years or so,​

​

We do not find a genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the single universal flood layer, and​

​

We do not find a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth. which would be necessary to cover all the highest mountains 20 or so feet deep?​

When those three things are demonstrated to the satisfaction of science, I might be more curious about the Flood. Meanwhile the tale of Orpheus' visit to the Underworld is about as credible.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Nope. I gave up paying close attention to YECism after the trouncing their "science" and their integrity received in the Dover case 2005, inter alia leaving zero examples of "irreducible complexity" on the table ever after.

As for the Genesis flood, have YECS yet explained why

We do not find a single universal geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, the layer dating to a date in the last 10,000 years or so,​

​

We do not find a genetic bottleneck in the genes of every species of land animal, all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the single universal flood layer, and​

​

We do not find a billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth. which would be necessary to cover all the highest mountains 20 or so feet deep?​

When those three things are demonstrated to the satisfaction of science, I might be more curious about the Flood. Meanwhile the tale of Orpheus' visit to the Underworld is about as credible.

Single layer of sediment? Why?

In response...how do you explain oil and coal deposits globally that are clearly the result of sedimentary burial of plants and animals?

Why should there be a genetic bottleneck? Actually if the earth was billions of years old, genetic degradation would he the problem, not bottleneck for YEC. I think loss of DNA information is a far bigger problem.

Explain climate change...clearly we are making it worse and not better.despite the evolutionary inference survival of the fittest suggesting it should improve...oh that's right, it's not survival of the fittest, it's just a random cycle that will eventually wipe itself out and start over!

Billions of metres of water???

The bible says specifically " the fountains of the deep burst forth"

Are you able to.prove that there are is such thing as underground aquifers and that before the flood those aquifers were significantly different to what they are today?

Icecaps, if they all melted, by how much would sea levels rise...is it not in excess of 70metres?

Can you.prove that all mountains 4500 years ago were as high as they are today...given Geology clearly shows historical uplift which is actually consistent with biblical claims rather than contrary to it!

We know the deepest part of current ocean (challenger deep if memory serves) is approx 11,000metres....thats 11km. Are you measuring your start elevation from sea level or the ocean floor 11km below sea level?

You are dog barking up trees given the depth of the ocean shows exactly where all the water was...and still is! Its not the water volume that is the problem here...its only an argument about average land elevation above the ocean floor!

People have no idea because they look at what is visible above the surface of the water and not how deep our current oceans are today. This is a zero problem for YEC and those who believe in Noah's flood.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You've just "proven" that you are easily deceived by creationist apologetics.

Agreed, but that irrelevant to the discussion. He believed that lying for Jesus was justified

"If through my lying Jesus is advanced then why do you blame me?" Romans 3:7

There is no relevant missing context. You could reproduce the entire chapter, and it wouldn't change the meaning of that sentence, which is what your criticism implies. The prime example is changing, "The fools says in his heart that there is no god" to "There is no god." The missing words show that the writer meant the opposite of what the words out of context imply the writer meant. That's not the case here. The missing context merely amplifies the point without otherwise changing it. Paul asks a rhetorical question. Nowhere does he call such lying immoral. He justifies it by noting that it is human nature. And Luther obviously didn't think that such lying was immoral just like today's creationist apologists like the one that fooled you about human evolution. He lied to you, and you believed him. That's a two-millennium+ history and tradition supporting pious fraud ("lying for Jesus").

And your guy Genty is yet another in an endless succession of people with those values, methods, and agenda, which is to say anything that might promote their incorrect, faith-based beliefs. People interested in truth - different agenda - are nothing like that - different values and methods - and have no interest in what such people say.

Paul did not say he lied and you need to read the passage in context.
Which proves that you listened to someone who is deceiving.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I did.

You haven't demonstrated that you read Gentry's book or understand his argument. Which makes one suspect whether you care about truth or just care about validation of the deity you believe in.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You haven't demonstrated that you read Gentry's book or understand his argument. Which makes one suspect whether you care about truth or just care about validation of the deity you believe in.

I did read it and I do understand it.
Please try to refute his findings if you can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Single layer of sediment? Why?

Because floods leave layers of sediment behind as evidence that they occurred.

In response...how do you explain oil and coal deposits globally that are clearly the result of sedimentary burial of plants and animals?

Oil: because in the deep past, organic matter from sea life and plants accumulated on the sea-bed over LARGE periods and eventually got burried. Over many millions of years of being trapped under high pressure, those organic materials turned into the oil we drill up today.

Coal: trees and plants that lived hundreds of millions of years ago in swampy forrests that got burried by layers of rock and dirt. The resulting pressure turned those planets and trees into coal over the millions of years that followed.

Why should there be a genetic bottleneck?

Because when you reduce the population of size of a species to several hundreds (let alone 2 to 14) individuals, there is an extreme loss of genetic diversity, which is what a genetic bottleneck is.

When species do not have a genetic bottleneck, it means the species population size was never greatly reduced.

Actually if the earth was billions of years old, genetic degradation would he the problem, not bottleneck for YEC. I think loss of DNA information is a far bigger problem.

This is a statement rooted in absurdity and ignorance. It makes no sense whatsoever in context of how genetics actually works.

Explain climate change...

Dramatic increase of heat trapping gasses in atmosphere => warmer atmosphere => climate change

clearly we are making it worse and not better.

Unfortunately, yes.
Although scientists seem to have finally succeeded in raising awareness that it is at least happening and that we need to change our ways. Unfortunately so far it seems like a lot of talk and very little action.

despite the evolutionary inference survival of the fittest suggesting it should improve...

No idea what that is supposed to mean. Sounds like another statement rooted in ignorance and absurdity.

oh that's right, it's not survival of the fittest, it's just a random cycle that will eventually wipe itself out and start over!

And another one of such statements.

Billions of metres of water???

The bible says specifically " the fountains of the deep burst forth"

That's indeed what it says. Off course, there are no such "fountains" nore is there any evidence there ever were.

Are you able to.prove that there are is such thing as underground aquifers and that before the flood those aquifers were significantly different to what they are today?

That would be the job of those who claim the bible flood happened. Don't ask us to do your homework. You make claims, you support them.

Icecaps, if they all melted, by how much would sea levels rise...is it not in excess of 70metres?

I don't know without looking it up. But it stands to reason that if all ice melts, that sea levels would rise, yes.

Can you.prove that all mountains 4500 years ago were as high as they are today...given Geology clearly shows historical uplift which is actually consistent with biblical claims rather than contrary to it!

Geological uplift doesn't happen overnight. To get the geological uplif at a rate that your story would require, would be so catastrophic that it would boil the world killing everything, including those on the magical boat. The world would be a barren place devoid of life if such would have occured.

We know the deepest part of current ocean (challenger deep if memory serves) is approx 11,000metres....thats 11km. Are you measuring your start elevation from sea level or the ocean floor 11km below sea level?

Mountains grow through geological uplift by a few milimeters per year.

You are dog barking up trees given the depth of the ocean shows exactly where all the water was...and still is! Its not the water volume that is the problem here...its only an argument about average land elevation above the ocean floor!

Your argument requires an uplift at a rate that would be completely cataclysmic and for which no geological processes are known to even be possible.
Clearly you have no idea about the physics involved.

People have no idea because they look at what is visible above the surface of the water and not how deep our current oceans are today.

Right, right. Scientists don't look at oceans at all, only at land.
Do you really believe this?

This is a zero problem for YEC and those who believe in Noah's flood.

The only reason YECs don't have problems (or better put: don't realize they have problems), is because they don't care about evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Because floods leave layers of sediment behind as evidence that they occurred.



Oil: because in the deep past, organic matter from sea life and plants accumulated on the sea-bed over LARGE periods and eventually got burried. Over many millions of years of being trapped under high pressure, those organic materials turned into the oil we drill up today.

Coal: trees and plants that lived hundreds of millions of years ago in swampy forrests that got burried by layers of rock and dirt. The resulting pressure turned those planets and trees into coal over the millions of years that followed.



Because when you reduce the population of size of a species to several hundreds (let alone 2 to 14) individuals, there is an extreme loss of genetic diversity, which is what a genetic bottleneck is.

When species do not have a genetic bottleneck, it means the species population size was never greatly reduced.



This is a statement rooted in absurdity and ignorance. It makes no sense whatsoever in context of how genetics actually works.



Dramatic increase of heat trapping gasses in atmosphere => warmer atmosphere => climate change



Unfortunately, yes.
Although scientists seem to have finally succeeded in raising awareness that it is at least happening and that we need to change our ways. Unfortunately so far it seems like a lot of talk and very little action.



No idea what that is supposed to mean. Sounds like another statement rooted in ignorance and absurdity.



And another one of such statements.



That's indeed what it says. Off course, there are no such "fountains" nore is there any evidence there ever were.



That would be the job of those who claim the bible flood happened. Don't ask us to do your homework. You make claims, you support them.



I don't know without looking it up. But it stands to reason that if all ice melts, that sea levels would rise, yes.



Geological uplift doesn't happen overnight. To get the geological uplif at a rate that your story would require, would be so catastrophic that it would boil the world killing everything, including those on the magical boat. The world would be a barren place devoid of life if such would have occured.



Mountains grow through geological uplift by a few milimeters per year.



Your argument requires an uplift at a rate that would be completely cataclysmic and for which no geological processes are known to even be possible.
Clearly you have no idea about the physics involved.



Right, right. Scientists don't look at oceans at all, only at land.
Do you really believe this?


The only reason YECs don't have problems (or better put: don't realize they have problems), is because they don't care about evidence.

And all of your reasoNing is based on already proven false assumptions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I did read it and I do understand it.
Please try to refute his findings if you can.

Prove that you have read it and understand it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And all of your reasoNing is based on already proven false assumptions.

Making bare assertions and unsupported claims is not the same as "proving" something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prove that you have read it and understand it.

He won't. He will just repeat his claims and pretend that is enough.