Conquer Club

Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby / on Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:18 am

Ok, the picture might not be a perfect representation, but that's not really relevant, the only reason I used it is because it's a close enough representation to the point I'm trying to make that is also visually easy to understand.

universalchiro wrote: The rate of settling will be according to density globally, but the content settling may vary because of eddys or turbulance in the flood waters. for one there may have been more biomass in the middle east region and in Texas, etc. But always things settle according to density to form layers.


The point it this, that picture shows that the above statement is false. If it were true, the layers would always be segregated in the same order. Calcium carbonate is either lighter that quartz or heavier, so in your version of events, one will always be on top of the other. So why are there layers of limestone over sandstone, under sandstone, in between sandstone, at the top layer, at the bottom layer and every other sort of variation, not only all around the world, but even within this one single site?

universalchiro wrote:But for the slow gradual depository hypothesis of evolution, there is a problem of viewing segregated sediment, vegetation and biomass in layers. For uniformitarian theory doesn't allow segregated layers with all sediment soil types deposited simulyaneously. And there can't be any rain for millions of years because there are no erosion marks commingling the layers.

What are "erosion marks"? What is "commingling the layers"? Erosion is very gradual, and often produces effects that seem smooth, just look at a riverbed, water often polishes rocks smooth as it washes over them. Just look at the pyramids, as the wind rolls over them they become flatter and less distinguishable from the sand below. The elements are plenty commingled, and we can observe changes form each era, both gradual and drastic. You are the one asserting that a gazillion gallons of water produced uniformity, not chaos, so why do the rules change for a few drops of water or a minor flood? Water is water, so the resulting "eroded" minerals naturally obey the laws of gravity by settling back down into a relatively smooth way.
Sergeant 1st Class /
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:41 am

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby universalchiro on Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:08 pm

@/: why is limestone at different levels of segregated layers? This is a fair question. Items that make up limestone such as bone, teeth, coral and shell, when those items are broken down to their base form from mechanical force (waves, debris, turbulence, etc) then their densities are closer together and will settle closer to the same time. However, bone is less dense than coral in original formation, thus they wouldn't be the same densities, hence different layers of limestone. In addition, lcalcium carbonate that has other sediment or other biomass with it will also affect density, this is why limestone color ranges from white, yellow, tan and grey. So with the predomiance being calcium carbonate adding either some sand or some clay or some adipose or some muscle or some vegetation, will alter its density from 100% pure calcium carbonate, hence multiple layers of limestone with different colors because different impurities mixed in.
My hypothesis would be in jeopardy if 100% limestone was many layers below 100% limestone that was also separate by other sediment and then another 100% limestone layer. This hypothetical layering would be closer uniformatarian. But there are different impurities that effected rate of settling by effecting density.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby crispybits on Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:26 pm

So the sediment didn't form in layers according to it's weight any more, but now you're saying that some of the sand stuck to some of the bones and some of the clay stuck to some of the coral and your previous claims that:

"But, since there are no mixing of the layers, then the hypothesis that each layer (according to evolutionary geologist) took 100K to 1 million years is not a tenable argument" (page 3 of this thread)

"For me, seeing the layers of the crust smooth w/o commingling is compelling and a salient point against billions of years." (page 4 of this thread)

"A global flood occurred and as the waters receded over the next year, the sediment settled in layers and the water receded into the Glacial age (rational deductive reasoning required)." (page 4 of this thread)

These aren't what you actually believe? Which is it, the layers mixed or they didn't? Make your mind up....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby universalchiro on Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:39 am

Crispy your ability to read my posts and understand them is so impaired with your vehement hatred for God, Bible, creationist and me that you can't even comprehend what I write.
Yes there are layers. I was explaining my hypothesis why there are multiple limestone layers from a global flood. Shesh,. Take your finger off the trigger, holster your weapon, calm down and enjoy the intelligent conversation.
User avatar
General universalchiro
SoC Training Adviser
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Texas

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby crispybits on Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:50 am

No explanation then of why you continually state that there is no mixing of the layers and now you state that there was mixing of the layers. Why am I not surprised....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:48 am

So much easier to just claim anyone disagreeing is "exhibiting hatred" or simply "shows no understanding" than to actually offer intelligent answers to challenges.

Unfortunately, universalchiro, this type of response does not bode well for someone promoting himself as a Christian. See, Christ is about honesty. Honesty means not just speaking what you believe to be true, but honestly investigating when challenged. You make clear you cannot or will not do that.

I have to ask what it is that you fear? Is your faith on such unsolid base that if this one matter were proven different than you believe, it would shake your entire faith?

Well, you share your faith, then with those in the Middle Ages who thought that any assertion that the Earth Revolved around the sun was an attack on Christianity and the Bible.

Most of us, however, have long since moved on...OUR faith can take truth. (and note. this is NOT a condemnation of all young earth creationists.. I may disagree with them, but most don't go to such lengths to avoid truth)
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby notyou2 on Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:59 am

UC, if god made all living things as well as the earth and entire universe, why did he make all the plants green? Surely he had other colours in his palate and could make plants of many colours, yet it is rare to see plants that aren't green.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:11 am

universalchiro wrote:Crispy your ability to read my posts and understand them is so impaired with your vehement hatred for God, Bible, creationist and me that you can't even comprehend what I write.
Yes there are layers. I was explaining my hypothesis why there are multiple limestone layers from a global flood. Shesh,. Take your finger off the trigger, holster your weapon, calm down and enjoy the intelligent conversation.

The trouble is your ideas don't match what really exists in this world.

And.. the more you try to explain, the more clear it is that you jut don't understand even the most basic science. Sadly, you use Christianity as a supposed cover for your ignorance.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

Postby tzor on Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:31 am

notyou2 wrote:UC, if god made all living things as well as the earth and entire universe, why did he make all the plants green? Surely he had other colours in his palate and could make plants of many colours, yet it is rare to see plants that aren't green.


That's not true. Green just happens to be in the MAJORITY. Given a slight decrease in temperature, the other colors get to be in the majority over the green, the lovely reds, delightful oranges, and the ever so sweet yellows. Oh how I love New York in the fall.

But seriously, the color green is an annoying problem even for evolutionists.

Here is an article that suggests that the early earth was more based off of retinal, making the earth more of a red-blue purple. There are some theories that the frequencies of chlorophyll is more suited to the spectrum of the sun around the gas giants than it is around the inner planets and that it might have actually come from outer space.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Previous

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron