Coitus Interruptus... Flirty Turtles, Fossils and the Flood

[6days]

There are conflicting genealogies in scripture. I believe they are reasonably accurate.

False...God's Word is inerrant. Your low view of scripture explains how you rationalize everything to fit secular beliefs and timelines.

Spiritual death. Separation from God.

That is part of the compromise of the gospel that evolutionists make. Christs's physical death becomes meaningless...the shedding of blood unnecessary.

They were not. We were created on the 6th day, not the beginning. The end technically.

That's a rationalization of Christ's words and a rejection of what Moses wrote. Humans were created in the beginning, on the sixth day..... not, evolved from monkeys 14 billion years later.

Not at all. The hypothesis of what an observer on Earth would witness watching the Big Bang lines up perfectly with what Genesis describes.

I wasn't aware that a watery earth in the beginning lines up with the Big Bang. Either you don't know Big Bang theory, or the Bible...They are diametrically opposite in many ways.

 

[CabinetMaker]

False...God's Word is inerrant. Your low view of scripture explains how you rationalize everything to fit secular beliefs and timelines.

And yet the fact remains, the genealogies are inconsistent.

That is part of the compromise of the gospel that evolutionists make. Christs's physical death becomes meaningless...the shedding of blood unnecessary.

So you just ignore me when I said the exact opposite.

That's a rationalization of Christ's words and a rejection of what Moses wrote. Humans were created in the beginning, on the sixth day..... not, evolved from monkeys 14 billion years later.

Were there other things created before men? Were there other things created after men?

I wasn't aware that a watery earth in the beginning lines up with the Big Bang. Either you don't know Big Bang theory, or the Bible...They are diametrically opposite in many ways.

I know both. I have no need to lie about either. They are not diametrically opposed.

 

[Stripe]

[COLOR=#5B5B5B][FONT=Arial]The most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism's soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#5B5B5B][FONT=Arial]Water seeps into the remains, and minerals dissolved in the water seep into the spaces within the remains, where they form crystals. These crystallized minerals cause the remains to harden along with the encasing [URL="http://www.livescience.com/32763-where-are-the-oldest-rocks-on-earth-found.html"]sedimentary rock[/URL].[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#5B5B5B][FONT=Arial]- See more at: [url]http://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html#sthash.ppYokHoj.dpuf[/url]

There. No "cement" required.

:darwinsm:

You just described a process of cementation.

You really should stick to listening instead of constantly exposing your ignorance. :up:

 

[Stripe]

If Christ died to save us from physical death, then His mission was a failure since everyone still dies physically.Spiritual death - separation from God, is the breach that Christ repaired. Your philosophy is not scriptural and demeans the role of Christ.

We know why you're desperate to avoid the evidence. Why didn't you correct Cabinethead on his ignorance instead of perpetrating the rabbit trail?

 

[CabinetMaker]

:darwinsm:

You just described a process of cementation.

You really should stick to listening instead of constantly exposing your ignorance. :up:

And yet your article never refers to any actual cement is required. The process is called cementation but the process does not require any specific cement. It is a mineral exchange that happens with the minerals present in the sediment. That is your problem, you don't read beyond your search term to learn what is being said. You are dishonest.

 

[6days]

In a way we do see at least the start of the process. It is happening in river deltas, in the mud slides in California, volcanic eruptions that cover large areas with volcanic ash. I suspect that the reason we don't see very recent fossils is that the process actually takes a bit longer than some would have us believe.

That is the evolutionary model..Unobservable. Evidence is that fossilization often happened rapidly. Dead fish, whales, jellyfish, mammals, and birds are eaten by scavengers, bacteria, and destroyed by oxidation. They need to be rapidly buried and preserved for any chance at fossilization.
BTW...I personally seen a tree root that was fossilized in hours. (Very wet mineral rich soil and high voltage fallen power lines).

The reason that turtles were fossilized in the act of mating has nothing to do with the method of fossilization and everything to do with how they died.

False... The turtles obviously died rapidly...but, fossilization always has everything to do with the method; usually rapid burial in water borne sediment.

What would kill turtles so quickly that they did not have time to seperate?

One event that seems probable can be found in Genesis....the global flood.

 

[patrick jane]

How old do they say these turtles are ?

 

[Alate_One]

:darwinsm:

You just described a process of cementation.

You really should stick to listening instead of constantly exposing your ignorance. :up:

Yes, he EXPLAINED IT. Something you're incapable of doing. You fail to explain yourself and then make fun of someone that actually explains the drivel you've been repeating. Classy.

 

[Stripe]

And yet your article never refers to any actual cement is required. The process is called cementation but the process does not require any specific cement. It is a mineral exchange that happens with the minerals present in the sediment. That is your problem, you don't read beyond your search term to learn what is being said. You are dishonest.

Yes, he EXPLAINED IT. Something you're incapable of doing. You fail to explain yourself and then make fun of someone that actually explains the drivel you've been repeating. Classy.

:darwinsm:

Darwinists will say anything to avoid discussing the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Cementation without cement. :chuckle:

 

[Tyrathca]

Cementation without cement. :chuckle:

Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence. They care more about buzzwords than actually reading.

 

[6days]

And yet the fact remains, the genealogies are inconsistent.

God's Word is inerrant. The genealogies are consistent with each other. Perhaps you should start a thread defending your beliefs in inconsistencies within God's Word.

That is part of the compromise of the gospel that evolutionists make. Christs's physical death becomes meaningless...the shedding of blood unnecessary.

So you just ignore me when I said the exact opposite.

You said the penalty for sin was spiritual death only. That is part of the compromise that evolutionists insist on in weakening the gospel, and destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection.

Were there other things created before men? Were there other things created after men?

Read Gen. 1... In the beginning, God created everything in six days, each with a evening and morning. Humans were created as part of "the beginning"..... Humans are not descendants of monkeys 14 billion years later.

I wasn't aware that a watery earth in the beginning lines up with the Big Bang. Either you don't know Big Bang theory, or the Bible...They are diametrically opposite in many ways.

I know both. I have no need to lie about either. They are not diametrically opposed.

I didn't say you lied. But, you are mistaken in trying to make God's Word fit secular opinions. The Big Bang model has earth starting as a hot molten blob. God's Word tells us the earth was covered in water. The Big Bang has earth forming billions of years after stars had formed. God tells us He created the earth before the sun. We can continue on seeing how mans opinions differ from what God says..."For in Six days, God created the heavens and the earth..."

 

[6days]

Cementation without cement. :chuckle:

Doesn't it have to come in a bag labelled as 'cement', to be cement? It seems some think so.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days & Stripe,

Isn't it unusual that the Earth started out covered with water and then, after the Great Flood, it was covered in water again?! Very highly interesting!! It shows how God created everything from a blob covered with water twice!! Of course, Noah and his family made it unnecessary to create man again. And you know how Ham saw his father, Noah's, nakedness and told his brothers. And God said, "Cursed be Canaan {Ham's offspring}, a servant of servant's shall he be to his brothers." I think that Canaan/Ham were the ancestors of Africa, etc. That, I think, is why the blacks were made to be servants/slaves of every one of his brothers. I think only recently, that God removed that curse and set the slaves free. What do you think about what I think about?? See Gen. 9:25KJV please. Check out what is written in chapter nine. Thank you guys!!

Much Love In Heaven And On Earth, Too!!

Michael

 

[Stripe]

Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence. They care more about buzzwords than actually reading.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

We have turtles frozen in rock: Evidence. :up:

Necessary conditions: Water, sediment and cement.

These are the fundamentals of this discussion. However, the Darwinists are desperate to avoid talking about them.

Alate tried briefly, but ran for the hills when she found that her agenda wasn't going to be swallowed.

Doesn't it have to come in a bag labelled as 'cement', to be cement? It seems some think so.

Cabinethead makes a fundamental error and the Darwinists rally around him. They hate anything that stands in opposition to their precious religion; so much so that they will embrace obvious falsehood to maintain their desperate rebellion against the facts.

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope. Evidence, remember?

We have turtles frozen in rock: Evidence. :up:

Necessary conditions: Water, sediment and cement.

Evidence? Great! Now if you can get back to us when you have evidence (and perhaps a little more detail) for these necessary conditions for fossilisation that would be swell.

Otherwise you're just a dope who thinks he knows more about fossilisation than the experts who actually do the research and find the evidence. Evidence remember? Find some.

These are the fundamentals of this discussion. However, the Darwinists are desperate to avoid talking about them.

Nope. Evidence remember? You creationists are desperate to avoid talking about it, instead we're just meant to believe your statements at your say so.

 

[Jonahdog]

Did you know that shale is one of the ingredients in Portland cement?

Golly no. Assuming your statement is true, which is always questionable when dealing with Stripe and his compatriots, shale is rock. So if it is part of Portland cement, it needs to be ground down first, so I fail to see how it supports Stripey's nonsensical claims.

 

[Stripe]

Evidence? Great! Now if you can get back to us when you have evidence (and perhaps a little more detail) for these necessary conditions for fossilisation that would be swell.

Another moron who does not believe water, sediment and cement are necessary to form fossils.

Do I need to present evidence that the sky is blue before you'll engage rationally?

Otherwise you're just a dope who thinks he knows more about fossilisation than the experts who actually do the research and find the evidence.

Oh, you mean like the dope who has it in his mind that he could lecture me on the absence of cement using an example of cementation?

That would be stupid beyond belief.

We know why you want to cover for him; he upholds your precious religion.

Nope. Evidence remember? You creationists are desperate to avoid talking about it, instead we're just meant to believe your statements at your say so.

Nope. Evidence, remember?

We have turtles encased in rock. Evidence.

To get them there, water, sediment and cement were necessary. When you've caught up, we can talk about how these conditions might have played out that would account for what we see.

 

[Stripe]

I fail to see how it supports Stripey's nonsensical claims.

Claim 1, Evidence: There are turtles encased in rock. How is that nonsensical?
Claim 2, Necessary factors: Water, sediment and cement are needed to get the things we see. How is that nonsensical?

We know why you're desperate to avoid even simple statements of fact.

 

[Jonahdog]

Claim 1, Evidence: There are turtles encased in rock. How is that nonsensical?
Claim 2, Necessary factors: Water, sediment and cement are needed to get the things we see. How is that nonsensical?

We know why you're desperate to avoid even simple statements of fact.

Problems with reading 2 or more posts together, Stripe-0?
The suggestion was made that shale is a constituent of cement, I was simply wondering if that helps your particular current fantasy.