Great Debate Evolutionist Vs Creationist

[PLAYER57832]

Tsunami: I agree with you if the asteroid landed in water, but there were no oceans before the flood., but seas.

I am really puzzled by this, because I too thought that Genesis said that God created the oceans right at the beginning.

Genesis doesn't say oceans, it reads seas. And most of the ocean water we see today was stored in two locations before the flood. (1) The Canopy of water, (2) fountains of the deep. Genesis 7 records that it rained upon the earth and the fountains of deep violently burst open for 40 days.
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).

If, as you claim, the sediments settled from one single flood, the pattern we see would be significantly different than what exists. Because floods are essentially joined, represent one uniform layer of coverage, the sediments carried within the waters are well mixed. There is SOME layering as the various -sized sediments fall out. This is absolutely in no way what is seen in the full Earth record. Instead, we see layers that represent many different natural phenomena, including floods. We do not have one uniform layer just of flood sediments, we have many smaller layers of wind=blown debris, volcanic ash and lava, various floods, etc, etc, etc.

AND, in addition, we see evidence of erosion both between and within the layers. This means that layers were exposed, then inundated or covered (that is, it might have been volcanic action, another flood, wind debris or even erosion that made any of the layers). We know this is true not just because we can, for example, see a clear patter of sediment that EXACTLY matches the pattern in another area, minus a layer or two and because we can see layers reaching up into what we now call canyons or cliffs or mountains (one side exactly matching the patterns on the other, etc, etc), but because the top layers often represent recorded human history. Also, we are able to connect various layers through their chemical components. (remember, chemistry was one of the science you said you do accept as real) This is all evidence, not merely speculative thought. Although I am summarizing, and therefore skipping a great deal of explanatory detail, each piece of this is very well documented.


Also, you are still ignoring my earlier request that you show were, in the Bible, it says that waters from the flood were muddy. (note, I am not even questioning that they were, just wondering where, in the Bible you saw it specified)

[Metsfanmax]

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes. There is about a billion cubic kilometers of water in the world's oceans. If you were to translate than into a uniform shell of water sitting at a height of 100 km above the surface of the Earth, it would have a thickness of over 2 km. It's really not possible to see sunlight 2 km underwater. And the water would have to be distributed basically uniformly -- you have been referring to "global" rains, so it couldn't just have all been piled up on the equator; and besides, the gravitational force would quickly disperse it evenly on top of the canopy.

I agree w/ what you wrote, but my hypothesis is not 100% of oceans hovering as the canopy. My hypothesis is that the ocean water was 1/3 stored as the canopy, 1/3 stored as fountains of the deep, 1/3 as surface waters called seas.

Yes, I already know that your hypothesis is whatever it needs to be to justify your belief in something that is not literally impossible.

And hovering at an altitude of 100km would required a thicker band of canopy than if the canopy was at higher altitudes , with higher altitudes gravity is reduced by inverse square law and surface area increases.

Doesn't make much of a difference. At an altitude of 1000 km, the thickness required would still be about 2 km. Indeed, for the thickness to decrease to 100m (the point at which at least some sunlight would get through) would require the altitude of the canopy to be 25000 km. That's four times Earth's radius and more than 5% of the distance to the moon.

Having a predominate central band (not like thin disc), a frozen external arch and centripetal force would maintain geocentric orbit. The Hebrew word for firmament/expanse in Genesis 1 has visible archway in the sky. a band of a canopy is in harmony w/ scripture.
Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes, and in Genesis it also says that the Sun is in the firmament while your hypothesis (and a literal reading of the biblical text) is that the water lies above the firmament. So your hypothetical canopy has a larger radius than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Does this hypothesis seem possible to you?

[universalchiro]

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes. There is about a billion cubic kilometers of water in the world's oceans. If you were to translate than into a uniform shell of water sitting at a height of 100 km above the surface of the Earth, it would have a thickness of over 2 km. It's really not possible to see sunlight 2 km underwater. And the water would have to be distributed basically uniformly -- you have been referring to "global" rains, so it couldn't just have all been piled up on the equator; and besides, the gravitational force would quickly disperse it evenly on top of the canopy.

I agree w/ what you wrote, but my hypothesis is not 100% of oceans hovering as the canopy. My hypothesis is that the ocean water was 1/3 stored as the canopy, 1/3 stored as fountains of the deep, 1/3 as surface waters called seas.

Yes, I already know that your hypothesis is whatever it needs to be to justify your belief in something that is not literally impossible.

And hovering at an altitude of 100km would required a thicker band of canopy than if the canopy was at higher altitudes , with higher altitudes gravity is reduced by inverse square law and surface area increases.

Doesn't make much of a difference. At an altitude of 1000 km, the thickness required would still be about 2 km. Indeed, for the thickness to decrease to 100m (the point at which at least some sunlight would get through) would require the altitude of the canopy to be 25000 km. That's four times Earth's radius and more than 5% of the distance to the moon.

Having a predominate central band (not like thin disc), a frozen external arch and centripetal force would maintain geocentric orbit. The Hebrew word for firmament/expanse in Genesis 1 has visible archway in the sky. a band of a canopy is in harmony w/ scripture.
Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes, and in Genesis it also says that the Sun is in the firmament while your hypothesis (and a literal reading of the biblical text) is that the water lies above the firmament. So your hypothetical canopy has a larger radius than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Does this hypothesis seem possible to you?

Your reason for objecting to the canopy in the first place had inaccurate understanding of my hypothesis, when I explained that only 1/3 of the ocean waters was stored as the canopy you didn't objectively reduce your numbers accordingly. That's a disconnect of thought.
And the Genesis creation account has heavens plural on the 3rd day, w/ deduction means there were two expanses stretched out on the 2nd day. Atmosphere & universe (w/o sun moon and stars yet).

[Metsfanmax]

How does someone on Saturn see stars? Possible the archway of water was more band like and not thin like Saturn's rings. This would allow sun light. But let's say it was much broader, sun light would still refract in. Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes. There is about a billion cubic kilometers of water in the world's oceans. If you were to translate than into a uniform shell of water sitting at a height of 100 km above the surface of the Earth, it would have a thickness of over 2 km. It's really not possible to see sunlight 2 km underwater. And the water would have to be distributed basically uniformly -- you have been referring to "global" rains, so it couldn't just have all been piled up on the equator; and besides, the gravitational force would quickly disperse it evenly on top of the canopy.

I agree w/ what you wrote, but my hypothesis is not 100% of oceans hovering as the canopy. My hypothesis is that the ocean water was 1/3 stored as the canopy, 1/3 stored as fountains of the deep, 1/3 as surface waters called seas.

Yes, I already know that your hypothesis is whatever it needs to be to justify your belief in something that is not literally impossible.

And hovering at an altitude of 100km would required a thicker band of canopy than if the canopy was at higher altitudes , with higher altitudes gravity is reduced by inverse square law and surface area increases.

Doesn't make much of a difference. At an altitude of 1000 km, the thickness required would still be about 2 km. Indeed, for the thickness to decrease to 100m (the point at which at least some sunlight would get through) would require the altitude of the canopy to be 25000 km. That's four times Earth's radius and more than 5% of the distance to the moon.

Having a predominate central band (not like thin disc), a frozen external arch and centripetal force would maintain geocentric orbit. The Hebrew word for firmament/expanse in Genesis 1 has visible archway in the sky. a band of a canopy is in harmony w/ scripture.
Does this hypothesis seem impossible to you?

Yes, and in Genesis it also says that the Sun is in the firmament while your hypothesis (and a literal reading of the biblical text) is that the water lies above the firmament. So your hypothetical canopy has a larger radius than the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Does this hypothesis seem possible to you?

Your reason for objecting to the canopy in the first place had inaccurate understanding of my hypothesis, when I explained that only 1/3 of the ocean waters was stored as the canopy you didn't objectively reduce your numbers accordingly. That's a disconnect of thought.

That's because dividing by 3 is pretty simple. My original thickness was 2.4 km; now it would be 800 m. Still way too deep for sunlight to peek through.

[/]

Dr. Michael Shermer, an Evolutionist and publisher of 'Skeptic' debates a creationist. Learn both sides, both men are brilliant and both men do very well presenting their views.




Dr. Matthew Rainbow, a former Christian and evolutionist, debates a young earth creationist. Learn both sides of the debate.

Why is it that you mention a generic "creationist" in both of your videos?
Is it because they are the same guy?
Is it because that same "brilliant" man is Kent Hovind, a man of such moral conviction that he is currently serving a 10-year prison sentence for the 58 federal counts he was charged and convicted for?
Is it because he is a New world Order conspiracy theorist that believes the government and Satan are responsible for UFOs?
Is it because he is so zealously stubborn in his theories regardless of evidence to the contrary that even other young earth creationists like Answers in Genesis called him out on it?
Or is it just because you don't really know whether or not he really is "Dr." Kent Hovind, since his degree comes from a known diploma mill?

[PLAYER57832]

Anyone curious about, wanting to delve into creationism really ought to visit the Institute for Creation Research website. The institute purports to be collecting ground for anyone doing serious creation research.

In fact, I HIGHLY advise anyone studying any kind of science and anyone with kids studying science to do so. You will no doubt face folks with these ideas at some point and it helps to recognize what they have in mind. Also, reading through the site will help you to understand why some issues are being brought up in the way they are being brought up. A LOT of stuff is being put forward was just "let's look at opposition".. fine, when there really is, but too many of these "questions" are really just attempts to pretend that there is a real debate over proven fundamental science facts. That is, not just to say "let's teach our kids to question and look critically, to look for evidence and proof, but to actually teach kids that what has been put forward as proof is not to be trusted at all!"

[universalchiro]

@/, the IRS didn't accept Hovind's ministry exemption filing, so that meant he owed million in taxes. Most cannot look at content and weigh the evidence alone, most view the validity of content through the subjective of the person saying the information. Which is exactly what you just did, revealing you were unable to objectively weigh the content without subjectively interpreting the content through the legal proceedings of the person. That is not wise to judge like that.

[/]

@/, the IRS didn't accept Hovind's ministry exemption filing, so that meant he owed million in taxes. Most cannot look at content and weigh the evidence alone, most view the validity of content through the subjective of the person saying the information. Which is exactly what you just did, revealing you were unable to objectively weigh the content without subjectively interpreting the content through the legal proceedings of the person. That is not wise to judge like that.

Fine, I'm a biased person because I trust the theories of people who have actually dedicated years learning about science and biology over someone who buys a degree so that they can attach the word "Doctor" to their introductions, I'll give you that. I would argue that you are also biased since you seem to filter all information through biblical accounts rather than considering it at face value.

Could we talk about the layers of the crust a bit more? I'm still a bit bewildered as to how your flood based theory works from what you've said in this and the last thread. You referenced the formation of the grand canyon, stating that the layers are smooth without commingling, and said that is because heavier sediment sinks, while lighter sediment settles above it. Here is the picture I posted in the last thread, showing the various formations the canyon layers consist of.

show

I have a couple questions and points relating to the theories, to see if I can understand your position better.

1. As the chart shows, the formations largely use the same types of rock, and yet, they manage to pile on top of each other in seemingly random patterns; shale on sandstone, sandstone on shale, limestone on top, bottom, and several times in between. Traditional geology states that this is possible because the layers were created gradually through eroded dust being spread through elements such as wind and rain, so even heavier formations would have no chance to sink under the lighter previously established formations below. Can you explain how the formation composition seems to contradict the natural order of sediment settling in water that you proposed?

2. As the chart shows, several distinct formations consist of mixtures of various types of sediments and rocks. You claim there is no commingling of layers, so could you clarify what exactly you consider "commingling"?

[PLAYER57832]

Also, note that while the picture seems to show uniform layers, in fact there is layering within many of those layers, which is part of how we know their origins.

[universalchiro]

Well I agree I'd prefer a scholar from an Ivy league school than an on line school, but to extrapolate that everyone in prison is speaking falsely is a false dicotomy. For there are some notable people through history that spoke truth: Jesus, many apostles (Peter, John,etc), so your tactic of throwing out Hovind is not fulproof. Though I agree, most people in prison are not knowlegeable about science. Ya know even Galileo was imprisoned. So its a cheap argument.

Limestone is from broken down teeth, bone and shell, this fits perfectly from a global flood with abundant life reduced to calcium carbonate. Care to explain how the earth globally had calcium carbonate slowly form over 1 million years time with no other sedimentary deposit mixed in?

There are different types of shale, some is just compressed mud, black shale has organic material in it. This fits nicely with a global flood of waters with high turbidity settling with some mud with organic matter setling at a different rate than mud settling with no organic matter. Care to say how through 100,000 years there was mud with no organic matter and then a different period had 100,000 years of mud with organic matter.

With a uniformatarian construct, there won't be a solid global layer of calcium carbonate, because there would be deposits of all soil deposited at the same time, not 1 million years of mud, 1 million years of mud mixed with organic matter, then 1 million years of calcium carbonite from teeth bone
and shells, then 1 million years of sand, then 1 million years of clay, etc, that's an untenable observation from the evolutionary uniformatarian model.

(Typing from cell, forgive typos & if I failed to address your question)
What are your thoughts?

[notyou2]

Why do all the god fearing evangelicals avoid taxes? Apparently they lie to uncle Sam. I wonder what else they lie about?

[PLAYER57832]

Limestone is from broken down teeth, bone and shell, this fits perfectly from a global flood with abundant life reduced to calcium carbonate. Care to explain how the earth globally had calcium carbonate slowly form over 1 million years time with no other sedimentary deposit mixed in?

What makes you think this actually happened? That is, why are you claiming that there is a uniform layer that formed over a million years with no other deposits mixed in? Where are you saying this exists? It seems as if you are trying to say that is what geologists and chemists supporting evolution claim, but it is not true. They don't say any such thing. It is not something any scientists or any of us here assert to be true, so why would we explain it?

IF you wish to hear what we DO think is true, and why... ask away, but this you put forward is just fiction.

There are different types of shale, some is just compressed mud, black shale has organic material in it. This fits nicely with a global flood of waters with high turbidity settling with some mud with organic matter setling at a different rate than mud settling with no organic matter.

No, it actually doesn't.. not at all. There are too many layers with too many different components, not all all segregated by settling rates as you believe. Also, there are too many intervening layers with varied origins in between these many shale layers.
I know this to be true because I have seen it in many different locations, at many depths and altitudes. Its not just something I was told or perused on the internet, though you can certainly find pictures and explanations a plenty on various valid Geology websites.

Care to say how through 100,000 years there was mud with no organic matter and then a different period had 100,000 years of mud with organic matter.

I have not heard of any such phenomena. If you want an explanation, clarify. For now, it look as if you are trying to assert that scientists supporting evolution s make these types of claims... but they do not. You have misunderstood something, or just plain been grossly misinformed.

Again... if you wish to know what IS asserted and why... ask away. The proofs are plenty.

With a uniformatarian construct, there won't be a solid global layer of calcium carbonate, because there would be deposits of all soil deposited at the same time, not 1 million years of mud, 1 million years of mud mixed with organic matter, then 1 million years of calcium carbonite from teeth bone
and shells, then 1 million years of sand, then 1 million years of clay, etc, that's an untenable observation from the evolutionary uniformatarian model.

We don't see those layers you are describing. That is not what is evident. We see multiple layers interspersed with multiple other layers. Each of these macro -layers often has gradation within. Also, sediments are generally not uniform and "clean" as you claim.

Your entire idea there is just wrong.. not sure even how you could come to believe it is true.

[PLAYER57832]

Why do all the god fearing evangelicals avoid taxes?

I see, so if I find a few atheists or agnostics in jail...that means that the whole slough is similarly corrupt?

[/]

Limestone is from broken down teeth, bone and shell, this fits perfectly from a global flood with abundant life reduced to calcium carbonate. Care to explain how the earth globally had calcium carbonate slowly form over 1 million years time with no other sedimentary deposit mixed in?

How many creatures would have to be simultaneously live, then die to create this much limestone? Humans are the most common large creature on this planet, and today thanks to modern medicine, agriculture, and infrastructure, we have the most humans we have ever had alive at once at approximately 7 billion. Still, even if you took all the people in the world and placed them together, they would barely exceed 1 cubic mile in space, slightly over 1/2500th of the space in the Grand Canyon, and that’s alive. If we were to convert ourselves into calcium carbonate, which by definition is equal parts calcium and carbon, we would only have 2% of that, since the human body consists of only 1% calcium by mass. Limestone on the other hand makes up 10% of all sedimentary rocks on the planet. You would need exponentially more generations of life and death to even put a dent in that, something that is far more plausible with thousands of millions of years of life.

As for how the limestone is formed, it’s mostly coral reefs. If the location in question were a sea at some point, there would be plenty of time for bits of coral and seashells to gradually collect over the eons. As for how it managed to gather together in a formation, limestone is particularly soluble in slightly acidic water, and it often manages to drain away from other minerals. This is easily observable anywhere where there is a karst.

There are different types of shale, some is just compressed mud, black shale has organic material in it. This fits nicely with a global flood of waters with high turbidity settling with some mud with organic matter setling at a different rate than mud settling with no organic matter. Care to say how through 100,000 years there was mud with no organic matter and then a different period had 100,000 years of mud with organic matter.

Climates change. The area you are standing on right now could have been a jungle, a swamp, a dessert, a tundra, a volcano, or all of the above at some point in time over the millions of years. If a sea dries up, the fish aren’t going to survive there, and it may be a long time before the area is inhabitable again, and if a jungle turns into a tundra, the dinos won’t be around for long. Even if an area in inhabitable, or even actively inhabited, it doesn’t mean there is always going to be organic matter buried there. A body can become oil or a fossil in some cases in particular conditions, but insects, fungi, plants, and time break down the vast majority down into nothing.

With a uniformatarian construct, there won't be a solid global layer of calcium carbonate, because there would be deposits of all soil deposited at the same time, not 1 million years of mud, 1 million years of mud mixed with organic matter, then 1 million years of calcium carbonite from teeth bone
and shells, then 1 million years of sand, then 1 million years of clay, etc, that's an untenable observation from the evolutionary uniformatarian model.

For the most part, just as Player said, the earth doesn’t have globally continuous pure layers. If it does, they are probably mostly very deep where things work a bit differently (high temperatures can melt elements and allow them to float and sink). Different places have different environments and conditions at different times, that’s kind of the point; there’s currently a bit more sand in the Sahara Desert than the Rocky Mountains, so the currently forming layers will probably be quite different if they are observed some thousands of years from now. This composition is always changing, and can also be affected by events such as acid rain, volcanic ash, or lava.

[PLAYER57832]

Once again, universalchiro, you are starting with the assumption that the layers are the way you think they should be for the Earth to be young, then asking us to explain them. The trouble is, the picture you present is NOT what the Earth really looks like. You dismiss all such claims as fabrications, though the proof is very, very easy to obtain. THAT is why you lack credibility, even as a young earth creationist.

I truly wish widowmaker would weigh in here. It seems as if you are distorting what even most young earth creationists believe, nevermind what old earth supporters believe.

[universalchiro]

@player: true to your form, you bring no evidence, no logic, your post reminds me of a little kid standing next to adults talking and one person says something and you chime in with "YA!". So you use quantity of words to either say "not ah" or "Ya!". You bring no quality of discussion, maybe your words are very convincing at a day care, but not with someone that can see past your ample words.

@/ : first you say there are no continuous pure layers on earth, then you say limestone gathered together because of a slightly acidic water. I disagree with you about the layers of the crust, it is observable and testable that the layers are segregated.
Though it is valid that limestone reacts to acid, however to extrapolate that into a sea of slightly acid water to gather calcium carbonate together is a leap of faith.
BTW it is estimated that at the time of Noah there could have been 6 billion people alive, but agree humans weren't the primary contributor of limestone, I would say animals contributed much more bone and teeth, yet even they are not the major contributor, I say coral and shell are the primary sources.
Observing the segregated layers with vegetation and biomass , all settled according to densities forming layers and geological column globally is in harmony with Genesis 7-9.
Segregated layers is at odds w/ slow deposits of millions of years.

[PLAYER57832]

@player: true to your form, you bring no evidence, no logic, your post reminds me of a little kid standing next to adults talking and one person says something and you chime in with "YA!". So you use quantity of words to either say "not ah" or "Ya!". You bring no quality of discussion, maybe your words are very convincing at a day care, but not with someone that can see past your ample words.

No Evidence? I already said this is something I have directly studied and observed, as have literally millions of others.

But anyway, here is a very basic website on the grand canyon.:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-was- ... ormed.html

This one, by National Geographic is still basic, but offers sources and ways to track down why the information they say is true is thought to be true.

Overall, in short, we can say that we know your story is incorrect because the layers just don't really look the way you describe, the way some other young earthers (nore scientific than you generally, but still misguided) describe. Chemical analysis, matches to other areas, etc, etc... all of those techiques were used.

BTW it is estimated that at the time of Noah there could have been 6 billion people alive, but agree humans weren't the primary contributor of limestone, I would say animals contributed much more bone and teeth, yet even they are not the major contributor, I say coral and shell are the primary sources.

You are sort of partially correct. Some limestone, for example Dolomite, is formed from aggregates of planktonic forms. Ohters are from coral and/or shell. However, this did not all originate from Noah's flood. The evidence just is not there. As I stated already, your claim of a single uniform layer of limestone is just incorrect. There is no such world-wide layer.

Lack of such a layer is not proof there was no flood, but your attempts to claim things patently false as evidence really destroy any possible credibility you might otherwise have.

Observing the segregated layers with vegetation and biomass , all settled according to densities forming layers and geological column globally is in harmony with Genesis 7-9.
Segregated layers is at odds w/ slow deposits of millions of years.

Actually, no, this is not what you see, not even close.

Now, the pattern of evolution IS very much the same as put forward in Genesis, just not how you try to claim.

[/]

You see, UC, you have made some rather extreme and dubious claims. Can you mathematically back up your theory that it is possible to make a globally continuous layer of solid limestone even several feet deep with just the death of one global generation of life? Even by my roughest estimates it is completely impossible, even if the entire surface of the planet was a layer of barnacles. At least you agreed with me on the coral, but that has its own problems in your world, where did the coral live? I thought you said there was no ocean at one point.

If you have a source that says there at globally continuous layers, please share it.
It doesn't make sense to me, if the layers are all the same, why do geologists travel? Their backyard is exactly the same as Australia or Egypt.
Why did everyone go to California for the gold rush? Surely every state has a layer of pure gold in exactly the same place right under it.
Why are so many middle eastern countries disproportionately rich from selling oil? Shouldn't all those impoverished nations in Africa just dig a bit and sell their oil too?

[universalchiro]

@/: I understand your point. I was not clear, when I'm saying that there are layers globally, I'm not saying there is exactly the mirrored layer in Texas as in Australia. To use your point, why do geologist travel?', I agree with you that the layer formation are not 100% identical around the world, I'm saying 100% of the world has layers. Why might there be variants in the layers? 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.

My hypothesis has seas before the flood not oceans, so where did volume of coral come from? Coral also forms in deep caverns, along with many other mineral deposits (stalactites & stalagmites). But my hypothesis is plausible because I don't have to have a solid 20 feet globally of calcium carbonate, for bone, teeth, coral, shell and any other form of calcium carbonate will float at the same level when broken down to their base form of Calcium carbonate and with flood turbulence pooling occurs.
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.

[universalchiro]

@player: in case you are reading along, we are not talking about the formation of the Grand Canyon, but thank you for the link that isn't associated to the layers of the crust.
Maybe, just maybe take a look at the attached drawing the "/" provided, I have used that drawing several times and it is an evolutionary geoligist's work, so you are not refuting me about the segregated layers lacking erosion marks indicating no rains for millions of years, you are refuting your own kin.

Player, you said Jesus is your savior, why? Why do you follow Jesus? What has He done that is different than any other man?

[EBConquer]

great thread. i'm learning alot!

[PLAYER57832]

@/: I understand your point. I was not clear, when I'm saying that there are layers globally, I'm not saying there is exactly the mirrored layer in Texas as in Australia.

Which is what you would need to see if the layers were all formed from Noah's flood.

That we don't see a uniform layer is proof that some other factor happened. NOTE... your ideas are outliers even amongst young earthers.

In fact, not only are the layers shown not resulting from the flood, there is no single, uniform layer covering the whole earth from a flood. Having such evidence would be wonderful, it would prove that there was a flood (proving it was NOAH's flood would require more evidence, but just showing a world-wide flood is a start). Either the layer was eroded, or it did not cover the entire Earth. This last is possible given that its only fairly recently that humanity has had true knowledge of the whole Earth. Most ancients would call, say all of Africa and part of Europe or another defined area -- something beyond their personal experience to be "the whole Earth" (a bit more, but too time consuming to delve all the boundaries and they would vary anyway depending on the society and people). They would understand it as such. In modern times, we know differently, but did the ancients write using our words or their own? This goes beyond mere language and into whether they even could conceive of a wider Earth. Similarly, the "40 days" may not refer to an exact span of days. In those days, the term "40" was used very much like we speak of "millions" -- not as an exact number, but to mean "more than we can readily count".

Taking the Bible literally means understanding not just what the terms would mean today, but what was meant at the time the words were written. They are not the same thing at all!

To use your point, why do geologist travel?', I agree with you that the layer formation are not 100% identical around the world, I'm saying 100% of the world has layers. Why might there be variants in the layers? 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 problem is that this is not the pattern we see, not at all.

My hypothesis has seas before the flood not oceans, so where did volume of coral come from? Coral also forms in deep caverns, along with many other mineral deposits (stalactites & stalagmites).

Uh, no corals require water. Also, you do realize that corals are living creatures, right?

But my hypothesis is plausible because I don't have to have a solid 20 feet globally of calcium carbonate, for bone, teeth, coral, shell and any other form of calcium carbonate will float at the same level when broken down to their base form of Calcium carbonate and with flood turbulence pooling occurs.

hmmm... well, see this is not what has happened in any modern flood. Why are you suggesting that it would be so much different in the past?

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.

You are grossly misinformed. What we see IS the pattern required by old earth proponents and evolutionists (note you mix 2 theories together evolution is only a theory about biological chance in species. Geologic time scales and formations involve other theories and a MUCH longer time frame than evolution). There are plenty of erosion marks, and far more layers than you claim should be present.

[PLAYER57832]

@player: in case you are reading along, we are not talking about the formation of the Grand Canyon, but thank you for the link that isn't associated to the layers of the crust.

Oh, so you think the Grand Canyon is part of another planet, perhaps"

No, its very much here on Earth and gives us a nice picture of the top layers of the Earth's crust in that area.

Maybe, just maybe take a look at the attached drawing the "/" provided, I have used that drawing several times and it is an evolutionary geoligist's work, so you are not refuting me about the segregated layers lacking erosion marks indicating no rains for millions of years, you are refuting your own kin.

LOL... just because one person saying he/she is a scientist makes a claim, that doesn't make it true.

I did not use that picture because without a context it makes no sense. Are you saying that is a picture of Earth layers across Earth? It isn't.

Player, you said Jesus is your savior, why? Why do you follow Jesus? What has He done that is different than any other man?

begin with John 3:16

[GoranZ]

Lets END this debate "great" debate once for all... lets put the creationist where they belong, in the history

According to the latest studies Religious Children Struggle To Separate Fact From Fiction... I guess when they grow up they end up like religious children end up like universalchiro

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/religio ... ct-fiction

[universalchiro]

player, what you wrote is summed up with "not ah". As par for your course you wrote no substance but you managed to do it with 1,000 words. Is it ironic that you write so much saying "not ah", but when it comes to questions about Jesus you write very little. Interesting. And your Grand Canyon website is how the Grand Canyon formed, not how the layers formed, it mirrors your lazy post of merely rendering your verbose opinion.
What makes you think that there was actually a Jesus and He actually died for your sins and He actually rose from the grave?