creation vs evolution

[Lon]

I'll just throw you an example.

A deer is born from a momma deer. He is normal in every single way, except he has better than average hearing and worse than average sight. His sibling is all normal.
One day when he is young, a huge volcano erupts and forces his mother, brother, and self to relocate to a new location, and other animals from the surrounding area as well. The volcano's ash blocks the sun a little, lessening visibility. Now, sight is no longer as important bc nobody can see that well anymore.
The momma deer continues to raise her babies, but the sibling of our baby deer gets picked off when he can't see a sneaky wolf coming for him. Our baby, with his superior hearing, laid low in the grass bc he heard the wolf from a long way away. Momma comes back and finds only one baby, which she raises to completion.
As an adult, the world around the deer is still darkened by ash blocking the sun. Visibility is still reduced. Therefore he is more fit to live in this new world than his "normal" kin. He will go on to live longer and have more babies, some of which will carry his hearing trait and themselves be better off.

Do you see how that works? That is just one generation (given, in a cataclysmic scenario that makes evolution more likely). There have been literally millions of generations.

This is a time scale that you and I really have no reference for. We can't relate to it. Nothing alive can. It's simply too much time.

PS: I doubt your cat can use his wild thumbs opposably, but it's still cool that he has that many digits

:doh: You JUST undid all your speculation above :doh:

 

[Greg Jennings]

:doh: You JUST undid all your speculation above :doh:

Lon, I feel compelled to ask you if you've ever once taken any course relating to any of this. I'm not trying to be rude but this seems to be going over your head.

I typed a rather lengthy response and you completely missed it. That's why I am somewhat frustrated

 

[Lon]

Lon, I feel compelled to ask you if you've ever once taken any course relating to any of this. I'm not trying to be rude but this seems to be going over your head

Er, yeah. My brother is a biologist, my daughter taking Marine biology. I'm well acquainted. People 'assume' a lot since Darwin's day, but I'm positive that nothing, nothing extraordinary, nothing as complex as eyesight, happens without design. Not EVER going to happen. :nono:

Opposable thumbs: Extraordinary. Eye sight: Design, clearly. The evolutionary suggestion is 'because they need it.' Uhm --> Design. There is NOTHING that would give you stereo hearing without design. It, frankly, CANNOT happen. Sorry, any scientific method trying to disprove what is obvious is simply years of accepting a faulty premise. Opposable thumbs don't 'just happen.'

 

[Greg Jennings]

Er, yeah. My brother is a biologist, my daughter taking Marine biology. I'm well acquainted. People 'assume' a lot since Darwin's day, but I'm positive that nothing, nothing extraordinary, nothing as complex as eyesight, happens without design. Not EVER going to happen. :nono:

Opposable thumbs: Extraordinary. Eye sight: Design, clearly. The evolutionary suggestion is 'because they need it.' Uhm --> Design. There is NOTHING that would give you stereo hearing without design. It, frankly, CANNOT happen. Sorry, any scientific method trying to disprove what is obvious is simply years of accepting a faulty premise. Opposable thumbs don't 'just happen.'

I'm sure your brother and daughter are well acquainted. Have YOU ever studied this stuff? I went to school with several geologists whose families continue to believe in a 6000 year old Earth, despite the geologists themselves knowing the claims to be ridiculous.


You can posit and throw out personal ultimatums all you like. It won't change the reality that science uncovers every day. And much of what you claim to be "obvious" is simply wrong.

 

[6days]

*
It doesn't matter HOW RARE good mutations are IF THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES PRESERVED. Do you understand this

Greg..Greg....Greg...

How about you attempt arguing using data and science instead of your false belief system. Your statement is not based on data... Its religion.

Our genome has thousands of deleterious mutations that are PRESERVED. (We see this with vision problems, back problems, genetic diseases and disorders etc). Kondrashov in an aryicle titled 'Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?"' says "a normal person carries thousands of deleterious alleles".

Our genome has an estimated minimum of 60...perhaps 150 or more VSDM's added to and PRESERVED to our genome each generation. And... these mutations are cinsidered even more of a problem than the deleterious ones.

Your belief that only 'good' mutations are preserved shows your beliefs are not based on science.

 

[Lon]

I'm sure your brother and daughter are well acquainted. Have YOU ever studied this stuff? I went to school with several geologists whose families continue to believe in a 6000 year old Earth, despite the geologists themselves knowing the claims to be ridiculous.

Kind of like soft dinosaur tissue? Do you guys even pay attention to anomalies? :think: I do.

You can posit and throw out personal ultimatums all you like.

Yes. I can. It is only logical that I do so. It ain't gonna happen otherwise :nono:

It won't change the reality that science uncovers every day.

Honestly? One is not that relevant to the other. I can think of no science discipline that depends on evolutionary theory. There is no point for it that "design" wouldn't also cover quite well. What then? -->posturing as far as I can see.

And much of what you claim to be "obvious" is simply wrong.

Er, no. Your assertion and not else. I've had enough science in college to know there is a LOT of posturing in these forums. Read the article. It explains why there are still problems in these discussions and, ALWAYS will be as well as gives substance that reveals that some of your bluster is merely bluster.

Non-creation/design evolutionists on TOL, often mix the three definitions of evolution and tend to mean 'no design.' This is a theology forum. To come here with that ridiculous audacity is your own short-sightedness. That you'd say Christian scientists are biased? Your problem as well. It certainly isn't cognitive dissonance. You are the one who chose a theology website for indoctrination work. :think:

 

[6days]

Extraordinary. Eye sight: Design, clearly.

True..... It is by design. Dawkins and other evolutionists of the past argued the design was clunky and evidence against a Creator. Science has revealed...and continues to unveil an optimal design.
Logically, Dawkins and others argument is that a great design is evidence for a Creator.

Here is just one tiny part of an amazing design..... Our eyes are able to detect the smallest possible light, a single photon. It can't get any better than that. Recently, a evolutionist brushed away that fact by saying its not a big deal because its just a simple cis-retinal enzyme that allows that. (Ever notice how they like to claim things are simple such as the eye spot on flat worms? )

Anyways... cis-retinal is far from simple... and clearly evidence of a designer. A few years back
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-scientists-mystery-eye.html published an article titled 'Scientists solve mystery of the eye'. The article says"there are still a few unresolved questions in the details of the vision process, one of which is why the eye evolved to use a certain light-absorbing chromophore called 11-cis-retinal....."
{The reason its a mystery is explained here:
Journal of the American Chemical Society wrote:
One of the basic and unresolved puzzles in the chemistry of vision concerns the natural selection of 11-cis-retinal as the light-sensing chromophore in visual pigments.}

In the eye their is something called rhodopsin made of two molecules, one is vitamin A and a protein called opsin. Rhodopsin is one of the reasons researchers say the eye vis optimally designed. It is able to capture a single photon of light!!!!! When light is sensed by the vitamin, it amazingly changes shape becoming 11-cis-retinal molecule, which is like a light sensitive switch.
Another amazing thing now happens.... They (the switches) cause biochemical reactions which amplify the signal to the retina through the optic nerve, and then to the processor / brain. This complexsystem is what allows our brain to make sense of images.

Part of the reason for the study...(the 'mystery') is why does vitamin A "select" the 11th carbon bond... and not another isomer. The answer is that the vitamin can't receive light using any other isomer, and would not react with the protein opsin. The chemist Sekharan mentioned in the PhysOrg article says, "This indeed is very surprising given the fact that, outside the protein environment, 11-cis-retinal is one of the least stable isomers..."
What an amazing design! Too bad the authors try brush off the evidence of design attributing everything to selection. They are unwilling to follow evidence no matter where it leads... And, it leads to the Creator God of the Bible.

 

[Jonahdog]

Kind of like soft dinosaur tissue? Do you guys even pay attention to anomalies? :think: I do.

What do you mean by "soft dinosaur tissue"? Is it like the flesh on my arm?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ok guys. For a couple years I've tried having conversations with you about this subject.

I give up. Nothing will reach you. Not science, not logic, nothing. Most of the time I can't even get a straight answer to a question.

What seems to happen is that I start off explaining in too much detail, then attempt to dumb it down a little in order to get the point across, and that's inevitably when someone criticizes me for being wrong because I leave out minor details, which in the name of simplification was the whole damn point.

I do work in the field and the lab. I have seen the evidence. And all of science has too. I've had pretty esteemed professors SHOW me it, and explain. This is not a question that is actually up for debate. It's sad to me that so many people are ignorant of reality, but hey, we live in a factless world now. I don't have time to keep debating nonsensically here with people who believe, frankly, absurd things, such as baby dinosaurs being in the ark and eating hay. I'm supposed to accept that as logical? You're out of your mind.

If you want a 4000 year old creation myth that stole it's story from Sumeria, then Babylon to be your reality, so be it. But I'm going to live in the real world.

Good luck to all

 

[Jonahdog]

Greg: Good luck with expecting any logic here. When you must run your life on a literal interpretation of Genesis you are not likely to even attempt to understand the underlying science with respect to anything. As someone with a decent science background I can accept that the scientific community does not have all the answers. Don't know what was before the Big Bang, don't know what caused it, don't know how life started on the earth, don't know how the human eye got to be the way it is, etc. But I am comfortable with the universe being 14+ billion years old, the speed of light being constant over that time, the earth being 4.5 +/- billion years old, life arising on earth through natural processes and eventually evolving to where we are today.
If I am forced by my theology to believe a literal Bible then I cannot accept any of that, no matter what the evidence is. If I am forced by my theology to think the universe was created in a week about 6000 years ago, that my deity got mad and killed all but those on a big wooden boat 4000 or so years ago, that during that big flood, the continents rushed around like the Road Runner escaping Wile E....well then, logic and rational thought is irrelevant and perhaps destructive.
Go figure.

 

[Lon]

Ok guys. For a couple years I've tried having conversations with you about this subject.

I give up. Nothing will reach you. Not science, not logic, nothing. Most of the time I can't even get a straight answer to a question.

What seems to happen is that I start off explaining in too much detail, then attempt to dumb it down a little in order to get the point across, and that's inevitably when someone criticizes me for being wrong because I leave out minor details, which in the name of simplification was the whole damn point.

I do work in the field and the lab. I have seen the evidence. And all of science has too. I've had pretty esteemed professors SHOW me it, and explain. This is not a question that is actually up for debate. It's sad to me that so many people are ignorant of reality, but hey, we live in a factless world now. I don't have time to keep debating nonsensically here with people who believe, frankly, absurd things, such as baby dinosaurs being in the ark and eating hay. I'm supposed to accept that as logical? You're out of your mind.

If you want a 4000 year old creation myth that stole it's story from Sumeria, then Babylon to be your reality, so be it. But I'm going to live in the real world.

Good luck to all

I've had enough science. Me? I questioned my non-design/purpose professors. I simply raised my hand a lot: "Where did you get 'billion' from?" They'd give the answer, I'd ask more, always ended up assertion. Always, without fail.
If science would just say "we estimate" or "our best information" before every emphatic statement, it'd go a LONG way to actually causing scientific thinking and inquiry. You won't get that from theology, because most are convinced, but for me: "The best I understand scripture, I believe the earth was created in seven days." You can ask 'why.' Answer: Because in order for a system to sustain, it MUST be set in place else plant eaters can't eat, meat eaters cannot eat, and microbes have nothing to sustain them. A simultaneous system has to exist or no organic thing would have survived. The primordial pool doesn't, in fact, sustain life. There are too many complex issues and creation of a balanced system makes very good sense UNLESS you don't believe in an intelligent creator. Many scientists DO believe in an intelligent creator and it is NOT cognitive dissonance :nono:

As far as anything else, like arks and dinosaurs, it isn't that important. You are looking at speculations as how two opposing assumptions might work. Data: Soft dinosaur tissue, footprints in footprints, a biblical description of dinosaur-like creature in Job etc. Any scientist worth his/her salt is not going to theorize by 'dismissing' any data. What was Job talking about when he mentioned Behemoth and Leviathan?

It is factual and scientific history observation. No scientist wants to dismiss that. He/she wants their model to include whatever observations are out there and handle them. Why are people still trying to find Noah's ark? Some of them aren't Christians, they are just fascinated. That's what science is: we want to know. Science is a good thing, but once you shut off inquiry of any kind, you've stop doing science and started doing 'bias.' Imho, there is no room for that in science. NO room. I also hope the best for you, as well. Imho, good science is good for theology and vise-versa. All the best, -Lon

Greg: Good luck with expecting any logic here. When you must run your life on a literal interpretation of Genesis you are not likely to even attempt to understand the underlying science with respect to anything.

See above, theology is the same as science in what it seeks: It wants to know.

As someone with a decent science background I can accept that the scientific community does not have all the answers.

:up: Theologians will not always acquiesce because life is at stake. We bank on truths for eternal life. For me: From my best understanding, a sustainable organic balance had to appear simultaneously in order for life to exist. Because of that logical assumption on my part, a creation model makes sense. We are arguing by analogy, the chicken or the egg. Evolution assumes egg. Creation assumes chicken. Imho, arguments like this are good for both theology and science. It always makes us question our foundations. Science MUST welcome that thinking.

Don't know what was before the Big Bang, don't know what caused it, don't know how life started on the earth, don't know how the human eye got to be the way it is, etc. But I am comfortable with the universe being 14+ billion years old, the speed of light being constant over that time, the earth being 4.5 +/- billion years old, life arising on earth through natural processes and eventually evolving to where we are today.
If I am forced by my theology to believe a literal Bible then I cannot accept any of that, no matter what the evidence is. If I am forced by my theology to think the universe was created in a week about 6000 years ago, that my deity got mad and killed all but those on a big wooden boat 4000 or so years ago, that during that big flood, the continents rushed around like the Road Runner escaping Wile E....well then, logic and rational thought is irrelevant and perhaps destructive.
Go figure.

Again, and I hope you get this: Chicken/egg. What we assume drives any further inquiry. For me: Keep looking, there is no need to stop questioning. Theology doesn't question God, but any of our assumptions, yes. Science should never be staunch other than as to what is best. We still would love to see, by example, a better cancer treatment, and we are still looking for it. Penicillin? Same. We are trying to figure out how not to make super-bugs. Science 'has' the room to acquiesce, iow.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I've had enough science. Me? I questioned my non-design/purpose professors. I simply raised my hand a lot: "Where did you get 'billion' from?" They'd give the answer, I'd ask more, always ended up assertion. Always, without fail.
If science would just say "we estimate" or "our best information" before every emphatic statement, it'd go a LONG way to actually causing scientific thinking and inquiry. You won't get that from theology, because most are convinced, but for me: "The best I understand scripture, I believe the earth was created in seven days." You can ask 'why.' Answer: Because in order for a system to sustain, it MUST be set in place else plant eaters can't eat, meat eaters cannot eat, and microbes have nothing to sustain them. A simultaneous system has to exist or no organic thing would have survived. The primordial pool doesn't, in fact, sustain life. There are too many complex issues and creation of a balanced system makes very good sense UNLESS you don't believe in an intelligent creator. Many scientists DO believe in an intelligent creator and it is NOT cognitive dissonance :nono:

As far as anything else, like arks and dinosaurs, it isn't that important. You are looking at speculations as how two opposing assumptions might work. Data: Soft dinosaur tissue, footprints in footprints, a biblical description of dinosaur-like creature in Job etc. Any scientist worth his/her salt is not going to theorize by 'dismissing' any data. What was Job talking about when he mentioned Behemoth and Leviathan?

It is factual and scientific history observation. No scientist wants to dismiss that. He/she wants their model to include whatever observations are out there and handle them. Why are people still trying to find Noah's ark? Some of them aren't Christians, they are just fascinated. That's what science is: we want to know. Science is a good thing, but once you shut off inquiry of any kind, you've stop doing science and started doing 'bias.' Imho, there is no room for that in science. NO room. I also hope the best for you, as well. Imho, good science is good for theology and vise-versa. All the best, -Lon


See above, theology is the same as science in what it seeks: It wants to know.


:up: Theologians will not always acquiesce because life is at stake. We bank on truths for eternal life. For me: From my best understanding, a sustainable organic balance had to appear simultaneously in order for life to exist. Because of that logical assumption on my part, a creation model makes sense. We are arguing by analogy, the chicken or the egg. Evolution assumes egg. Creation assumes chicken. Imho, arguments like this are good for both theology and science. It always makes us question our foundations. Science MUST welcome that thinking.

Again, and I hope you get this: Chicken/egg. What we assume drives any further inquiry. For me: Keep looking, there is no need to stop questioning. Theology doesn't question God, but any of our assumptions, yes. Science should never be staunch other than as to what is best. We still would love to see, by example, a better cancer treatment, and we are still looking for it. Penicillin? Same. We are trying to figure out how not to make super-bugs. Science 'has' the room to acquiesce, iow.

Darn it Lon, you got me to bite so easily.

I will discuss with you what Levisthan and the creature in Job were. Post the verses from the Bible translation that you personally read from. We can break the descriptions down

 

[Lon]

Darn it Lon, you got me to bite so easily.

I will discuss with you what Levisthan and the creature in Job were. Post the verses from the Bible translation that you personally read from. We can break the descriptions down

Leviathan Job 3:8; 41:1 Isaiah 27:1
Psalm 74:13,14
Psalm 104:26
Behemoth Job 40:15-24 1 Enoch 60:7–8
A few hypothesis: Crocodile though it is suggested that scripture already has a word for such, different, found in Ezekiel 29:3 An elephant for Behemoth (doesn't seem likely because of the tail) etc.
Someone suggested I read Job 38:2, which seemed fitting :chucklewould keep me humble if I always paid attention).

 

[jsanford108]

Ok guys. For a couple years I've tried having conversations with you about this subject.

I give up. Nothing will reach you. Not science, not logic, nothing. Most of the time I can't even get a straight answer to a question.

What seems to happen is that I start off explaining in too much detail, then attempt to dumb it down a little in order to get the point across, and that's inevitably when someone criticizes me for being wrong because I leave out minor details, which in the name of simplification was the whole damn point.

I do work in the field and the lab. I have seen the evidence. And all of science has too. I've had pretty esteemed professors SHOW me it, and explain. This is not a question that is actually up for debate. It's sad to me that so many people are ignorant of reality, but hey, we live in a factless world now. I don't have time to keep debating nonsensically here with people who believe, frankly, absurd things, such as baby dinosaurs being in the ark and eating hay. I'm supposed to accept that as logical? You're out of your mind.

If you want a 4000 year old creation myth that stole it's story from Sumeria, then Babylon to be your reality, so be it. But I'm going to live in the real world.

Good luck to all

Hello Greg. I know a Greg Jennings. Nice and funny guy.

I am a Christian and a biologist. First off, I am not a young earth theorist, as it goes against evidence and logic (as a result of evidence). However, my issue with the theories that are prevalent and assumed as "fact" are that they also go against evidence and logic.

If you have been in this discussion since its beginning, you will have seen my [brief] debate with Jonahdog. I related several bits of evidence that refuted his points (which he just dismissed).

If you would like an intelligent, scientific discussion, I am always open to them.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Greg Jennings]

Leviathan Job 3:8; 41:1 Isaiah 27:1
Psalm 74:13,14
Psalm 104:26
Behemoth Job 40:15-24 1 Enoch 60:7–8
A few hypothesis: Crocodile though it is suggested that scripture already has a word for such, different, found in Ezekiel 29:3 An elephant for Behemoth (doesn't seem likely because of the tail) etc.
Someone suggested I read Job 38:2, which seemed fitting :chucklewould keep me humble if I always paid attention).

Thank you Lon.

First, Leviathan:
"Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?"

"that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong,
Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan that twisted serpent;
And He will slay the reptile that is in the sea."

That's difficult to really say one way or the other. Those two could refer to crocs (as you mentioned) or maybe whales. Even a big swimming monitor lizard might work. They used to get much bigger before big civilizations popped up and people got them before they got very old.

"broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces,
And gave him as food to the people inhabiting the wilderness."
I too think this is vague. But to play Devil's advocate, you could take this verse and fit it in neatly with 6days' version of Earth's history. If Leviathan was interpreted as metaphor for dinosaurs as a race then you could interpret this as God destroying the Dinos to provide for humans. Actually, that fits what I believe happened as well: that an asteroid impact began the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, and if not for that "act of God" then humans could never have risen to eventually replace them.

Anyway. Random thoughts.



"26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there."

I'm thinking that descriptions of the Leviathan could be a whole bunch of things. I, in my personal opinion, see no reason to suspect the creature to be what we call prehistoric. I think it's a whale. Or maybe something unknown. The ocean is huge and could hide something massive we've just never seen and recorded yet.

I will look at Behemoth shortly.

 

[Lon]

Thank you Lon.

First, Leviathan:
"Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?"

"that day the Lord with His severe sword, great and strong,
Will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent,
Leviathan that twisted serpent;
And He will slay the reptile that is in the sea."

That's difficult to really say one way or the other. Those two could refer to crocs (as you mentioned) or maybe whales. Even a big swimming monitor lizard might work. They used to get much bigger before big civilizations popped up and people got them before they got very old.

Saltwater Crocodiles, and I'd wonder how easy one would be to kill without a shotgun.... :think:

"broke the heads of Leviathan in pieces,
And gave him as food to the people inhabiting the wilderness."
I too think this is vague. But to play Devil's advocate, you could take this verse and fit it in neatly with 6days' version of Earth's history. If Leviathan was interpreted as metaphor for dinosaurs as a race then you could interpret this as God destroying the Dinos to provide for humans. Actually, that fits what I believe happened as well: that an asteroid impact began the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs, and if not for that "act of God" then humans could never have risen to eventually replace them.

Anyway. Random thoughts.

Not too random, if they all make sense together, and they do. It is always better if science/theology is on any page together, even in speculation, imho, because we are both trying to figure it out, collectively, at that point. Here is a little something to think about (may talk about it later, but a picture or two is worth a bit of contemplation (Cave paintings):
View attachment 25751

"26 There the ships sail about;
There is that Leviathan
Which You have made to play there."

I'm thinking that descriptions of the Leviathan could be a whole bunch of things. I, in my personal opinion, see no reason to suspect the creature to be what we call prehistoric. I think it's a whale. Or maybe something unknown. The ocean is huge and could hide something massive we've just never seen and recorded yet.

Somehow, they had to have some conception especially with the spears surrounding it.

 

[Interplanner]

Saltwater Crocodiles, and I'd wonder how easy one would be to kill without a shotgun.... :think:
Not too random, if they all make sense together, and they do. It is always better if science/theology is on any page together, even in speculation, imho, because we are both trying to figure it out, collectively, at that point. Here is a little something to think about (may talk about it later, but a picture or two is worth a bit of contemplation (Cave paintings):
View attachment 25751

Somehow, they had to have some conception especially with the spears surrounding it.

Yes, and the Nasca rocks are among the greatest scandal of paleontology. Everytime I think of them, the Sting song starts in my heart ('lost my faith in science.') Of 11,000 drawings about 1/3 were like your bottom picture above, humans doing things with dinosaurs. The scandal is the loss or destruction of them by uniformitarians, something like the Muslim destruction of Hindu sites in Iran and India.

 

[Interplanner]

IS GENESIS HISTORY? is now up at Netflix. All people interviewed are Ph.D.

to Jonahdog
re the Coconino deposits. There are 5 its size in overlap in north America. all are liquid sediment. They mentioned briefly in IGH? You are right about the lack of connection with New England if you meant the deposit location. The Genesis cataclysm was so huge the raw material could have come from anywhere, for any of the 5 deposits. I may be mistaken that that sediment was New England in origin, but one of them was.

The fact of 5 that large (2/3 the size of N America) lends to a brief pattern of irregular motion moving material there. In Sedona, the Coconino is directly on top of the basement, whereas in Grand, only 70 miles away, there is several hundred feet of a different deposit (the ______ Hill deposit) on the basement layer.

Like Dr. Nurre once explained to me, he wants to develop a model for kids where about 20 sq inches of the surface of a basketball or plastic ball is in a pan with silt, sand and water. To see what Genesis means, you press the 4x5 piece up and down 5 times and make notes on where the materials go and why. One MARINE dinosaur body sample is found on every continent.

"All of this discussion is not science vs religion but rather two views of time and rate in competition for the best explanation." --IGH?

Just as a reminder, we are not talking about "lots of rain" and static water. We are talking about total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate, atmosphere, etc. We are talking about high velocities of water being shifted and thrown. The word 'rogue' is not big enough.

 

[Jonahdog]

IS GENESIS HISTORY? is now up at Netflix. All people interviewed are Ph.D.

to Jonahdog
re the Coconino deposits. There are 5 its size in overlap in north America. all are liquid sediment. They mentioned briefly in IGH? You are right about the lack of connection with New England if you meant the deposit location. The Genesis cataclysm was so huge the raw material could have come from anywhere, for any of the 5 deposits. I may be mistaken that that sediment was New England in origin, but one of them was.

The fact of 5 that large (2/3 the size of N America) lends to a brief pattern of irregular motion moving material there. In Sedona, the Coconino is directly on top of the basement, whereas in Grand, only 70 miles away, there is several hundred feet of a different deposit (the ______ Hill deposit) on the basement layer.

Like Dr. Nurre once explained to me, he wants to develop a model for kids where about 20 sq inches of the surface of a basketball or plastic ball is in a pan with silt, sand and water. To see what Genesis means, you press the 4x5 piece up and down 5 times and make notes on where the materials go and why. One MARINE dinosaur body sample is found on every continent.

"All of this discussion is not science vs religion but rather two views of time and rate in competition for the best explanation." --IGH?

Just as a reminder, we are not talking about "lots of rain" and static water. We are talking about total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate, atmosphere, etc. We are talking about high velocities of water being shifted and thrown. The word 'rogue' is not big enough.

Got it, I understand you are talking about "lots of rain" and static water.
What is the mechanism that drives your "total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate,atmosphere, etc.? When and over what time period?

 

[Interplanner]

Got it, I understand you are talking about "lots of rain" and static water.
What is the mechanism that drives your "total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate,atmosphere, etc.? When and over what time period?

??? I'm NOT talking about "lots of rain." How about we recess until you have viewed/absorbed IS GENESIS HISTORY? It is now at Netflix.

It is heavily on geology until later in the doc. Because finally someone is showing, on a national level, that none of this is a question of 'science' vs 'faith/religion.' Instead it is one 'rate x time' equation vs another. The research on organic dinosaur tissue is spectacular, because it segues into the latest in understanding DNA.

One of the real values of hearing from 20 Ph.D.s all at once in this business is that you realize that when Lyell and Darwin were writing, no one really knew what microbiology was about on a micro level, in terms of DNA. It totally changes the meaning of terms like 'adaptation' 'survival' 'after their kind' etc in the discussions. Far too much was overextended on meager understanding.

The worst turn modern science ever took was the day Darwin sat on board the BEAGLE in the harbor of Rio Santa Cruz, Argentina, and instead of looking out at the enormous deluge-carved valley, he READ THEORY by a guy from 6000 miles away who never left the island of England. All 'science' since has been 'faith' in Lyell, and in Darwin, in the exact same sense as science tries to accuse Genesis of being 'faith.' when you are done with IGH? you will not believe Lyell's presupposition that the present is the key to the past. He has it backwards.