Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If that's what the evidence/data suggested then that would be reflected in science. It isn't.
Yes, yes, they're all deluded etc...
:dizzy:
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
If that's what the evidence/data suggested then that would be reflected in science. It isn't.
Yes, yes, they're all deluded etc...
:dizzy:
Alate_One
Well-known member
Physical death for humans was a thing after sin. Nothing was said in the bible about animal death never happening, much less plant death, bacterial death, cellular death. Plants that are eaten by people and animals must die so that people and animals can live. Thus you still have death before the fall no matter how much you protest against it. You may as well just give up the cosmic fall idea.
As far as Paul goes, to live is Christ and to die is gain ring a bell? Jesus frequently talked of people dying as falling asleep.
The wages of sin are death, both physical and spiritual. The physical death, and temporary separation from the Father of Christ paid the penalty of sin, yet we still physically die. The purpose was to restore the relationship with God which was broken by spiritual death. You are right that physical death will eventually be ended, but it's clearly not the most important point.
Alate_One
Well-known member
No modern scientist says the earth has been placid for billions of years. There have been many cataclysms, not just one. The formation of the moon, late heavy bombardment, snowball earth and the multiple mass extinction events. Oceanic anoxia, runaway greenhouse effect that killed almost everything on earth, meteor strikes, ice ages, etc. Many different events happening at different times. Some events were repeated, see the scablands of the northwest USA.
The posited Noah's global flood doesn't explain any of this and early Christian geologists figured this out quickly.
Right. So assuming that there was animal death goes beyond the scope of what the Bible says.
They would have to if they want to explain how some fossil groups are in multiple sediment layers. Or what, you think they died upright and somehow went undisturbed for millions of years without decaying, to be fossilized without being eroded?
http://rsr.org/nautiloids
There was one global cataclysm, the Flood. Other cataclysms have occurred, but none that are global other than the Flood.
Was on Day 4 of the creation week.
| Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. - Genesis 1:16-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:16-19&version=NKJV |
AFTER plants were created.
Where? The moon? or the earth?
Hydroplate theory includes an ice age, AFTER the Flood.
There was ONE mass extinction event. It happened during the Flood.
| And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died.So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. - Genesis 7:21-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis7:21-23&version=NKJV |
Evidence for this?
Didn't happen, because everything that was killed was killed by the Flood.
Meteorites are simply rocks launched from earth, returning home.
The only way to get an ice age is to have warm oceans and cold continents.
Easily achievable according to the HPT.
Do go on, I'm having fun pointing out everything that can be explained by the Hydroplate theory.
Nope, one event, the Flood, which happened ONE time about 3290 B.C. ±100 years.
Nope. ONE EVENT, the Flood.
:think:
| The Channeled Scablands at one time were a relatively barren and soil-free region of interconnected relict and dry flood channels, coulees and cataracts eroded into Palouse loess and the typically flat-lying basalt flows that remain after cataclysmic floods within the southeastern part of the U.S. state of Washington.[1][2] The channeled scablands were scoured by more than 40 cataclysmic floods during the Last Glacial Maximum and innumerable older cataclysmic floods over the last two million years.[3][4][5] These cataclysmic floods were repeatedly unleashed when a large glacial lake repeatedly drained and swept across eastern Washington and down the Columbia River Plateau during the Pleistocene epoch. The last of the cataclysmic floods occurred between 18,200 and 14,000 years ago.[6] Geologist J Harlen Bretz defined "scablands" in a series of papers written in the 1920s as lowlands diversified by a multiplicity of irregular channels and rock basins eroded into basalt. Flood waters eroded the loess cover, creating large anastomizing channels that exposed bare basalt and creating butte-and-basin topography. The buttes range in height from 30 to 100 m, while the rock basins range from 10 m in width up to the 11 km long and 30 m deep Rock Lake. Bretz further stated, "The channels run uphill and downhill, they unite and they divide, they head on the back-slopes and cut through the summit; they could not be more erratically and impossibly designed."[7] |
-Wikipedia
Flood . . . floods . . . floods . . . floods . . . floods . . . floods . . . flood...
:think:
Or maybe, it was caused by one BIG flood, namely, the one recorded in Genesis 7-8...
Just like the Grand Canyon was caused by, you guessed it, the Flood, or at the very least, is a result brought about by the Flood.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/GrandCanyon.html
Saying it doesn't make it so, and you have just been shown how a global flood COULD account for everything you just listed.
Last edited:
Easy. The rapid deposition of sediment was concurrent with a major upheaval of the Earth's crust — pretty much what you would assert happened over millions of years.
However, our idea has the advantage of accounting for all three ingredients and all three stages of rock preparation.
You don't even know what the three ingredients are.
genuineoriginal
New member
The layers do not show that they were eroded for a huge amount of time.
genuineoriginal
New member
And yet despite this, the theory of Evolution and the Fossil Record both rely on gradual changes over millions of years, completely ignoring the effects of cataclysms.
Early Christian geologists did not understand what we do now.
| Learning the lessons of Mount St Helens When the mountain blew up physically, it also blew away many false ideas about geology, ideas that were wrong, but had been believed for more than a century. Wrong geological ideas have also led people to wrong ideas about the Bible—that the events it describes were mythological and did not actually happen. Mount St Helens changed that, which is why I have been so interested in what happened. The eruption demonstrated that geologic catastrophe can produce in hours and days geologic features previously believed to have taken millions of years. When we see what the volcano did in such a short time, we can better appreciate how the catastrophe of Noah’s Flood formed the much larger geological features on planet Earth. One of the many surprising results was an 8 m (25 ft) thick sedimentary deposit exposed in a cliff alongside the North Fork Toutle River. It is composed of finely-layered sediment. From eyewitness reports, photographs, and monitoring equipment, it is known that this whole deposit formed in just three hours, from 9 pm to midnight on 12 June 1980. The Mount St Helens eruption also demonstrated how canyons can be formed much faster and in a different manner than conventionally thought. Ongoing eruptions eroded the thick sediment dumped at the base of the volcano, producing multiple channels and canyons. One such channel was dubbed ‘Little Grand Canyon’, being about 1/40th the size of Grand Canyon.1 Its side walls were up to 40 m (140 ft) high, its width up to 45 m (150 ft), and a small stream of water ran through it. Someone coming across that canyon could easily conclude that it was eroded slowly and gradually by the small creek now running through it, over many hundreds or thousands of years. However, the formation of this canyon was documented. It was carved by a mudflow caused after a small eruption of Mount St Helens melted snow within the crater on 19 March 1982. The mud built up behind debris, burst through it, and cut the canyon in a single day. So, the creek did not cause the canyon. The canyon caused the creek. The volcanic eruption, including the landslide, pushed rock down the mountainside and across the landscape. As the large rocks slid, they gouged grooves and scratches in the underlying rock. It has been customary for geologists to interpret grooves on rocks as being formed by a glacier, as the ice and rocks creep across the landscape. However, this interpretation would be wrong for the grooves in rocks at Mount St Helens; they were gouged by fast-moving rocks propelled by geological catastrophe, not a slow-moving glacier. This means that many geological areas previously interpreted as glacial environments need to be re-assessed, because they may not be glacial at all. The devastating eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 showed a lot about the effects of geological catastrophe. Features that geologists have traditionally thought needed long periods of time to form formed very quickly, within hours, days and weeks. Yet, by volcanic standards, even in historic times, the Mount St Helens blast was relatively small, ejecting some 1 km3 (0.2 cubic miles) of ash. The eruption of Vesuvius in ad 79 was three times larger, Krakatoa in 1883 was 18 times bigger, and Tambora in 1815 was 80 times larger. The volume of lava in the Deccan Traps in India is some 5 million times more. These indicate that volcanic eruptions during Noah’s Flood were millions of times larger. When we consider the true immensity of the biblical cataclysm, and how it impacted the whole earth, Mount St Helens helps us envisage how Noah’s Flood explains the geology of the world, and how it happened so quickly. |
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Facetiousness seems to fly over quite a few heads on here at times.
See the context.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Sure they do. How do you get many layers of flat rock turned on their side, totally perpendicular to more solid layers of rock and both have been eroded by long wave action. You don't do that in a single flood 4000 years ago.
Easy. The rapid deposition of sediment was concurrent with a major upheaval of the Earth's crust — pretty much what you would assert happened over millions of years.
However, our idea has the advantage of accounting for all three ingredients and all three stages of rock preparation.
You don't even know what the three ingredients are.
Alate_One
Well-known member
I don't think you understand evolution and the history of life on earth at all. Certainly you've not assimilated what is actually taught in the classroom. There are many major catastrophes, and smaller ones that are known to have created everything from individual fossil beds to many mass extinctions. However there is no evidence to say there was only one catastrophe, as each one has a different nature. Plus they occurred at intervals, not all at once. The scabland flood deposits for example, are interrupted by undisturbed volcanic layers which are then overlain by more flood deposits, indicating multiple successive floods, not one.
They did actually, better than you and the hydroplate fans anyway.
Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence
by Davis A. Young
A summary of the developments in geology in the nineteenth century.
| Buckland, Sedgwick and others ultimately abandoned nineteenth-century diluvialism when it became clear that gravels, valleys, polished rocks, cave deposits and the like could no longer be satisfactorily understood as the result of a giant deluge. Because the Christian naturalists of the era with unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation. |
Several of these same Christian geologists ultimately laid the foundations for the scientific understanding of the identified rock layers we know today, Cambrian, Silurian etc.
It wasn't formed in three hours. It was formed from eruptions that were months apart and a mudflow on top from 2 years later so . . .
Geologists are smart enough to understand that not every layer of sedimentary rock is formed over millions of years. Some have small annual layers, varves, as in lake beds.
What's a problem for the global flood is we find layers of pyroclast like at Mt. St. Helens sandwiched between limestone, sandstone, shale and lots of other kinds of rocks, indicating that the deposition environment has changed.
In the case of the Grand canyon, we find no fossils at all at the bottom, and more angular unconformities like Siccar point, then you find a variety of layers of sandstone and limestone which are all different from each other with different fossils in each one.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Oh yes because nautiloids were found "upright" instead of laying over, therefore global flood. . . . riiight.
You made dozens of assertions in the thread. No evidence.
Evidence of anoxic events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenomanian-Turonian_boundary_event
I read this thread occasionally and every time I do I leave it baffled. Alate says the miracles performed by Jesus during His life here on earth are things she accepts by faith and yet she denies creation. The disconnect in those two positions is something that just leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.
The creation of life itself is by far a greater miracle than creating the forms in which life exists. Yet Alate says she believes in the greater miracle and rejects the lesser miracle. Even stranger is that in the miracles Jesus performed He demonstrated the ability to do both with just the power of His word. He spoke life into multiple people during His life here. He raised Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and the son of the widow of Nain to life. In Lazarus' case we know he had been dead for days, and in a climate like the middle east's his body was in the early stages of putrefaction. The fat in his body was already rancid. His flesh was in the early stages of rot. He was literally beginning to rot away. And yet when Jesus spoke him back to life he came out of the tomb healthy as he lived for years afterwards. In other words, Jesus' words recreated Lazurus' body.
Jesus performed other miracles in which His word restored the human life form too. He healed lepers multiple times. We know leprosy kills the flesh. It literally eats it away. Fingers, toes, the nose, etc... just disappear under the effects of leprosy. In other words, to heal a leper takes not only the destruction of the disease itself, but the restoration of the life form, the human body. Alate professes to believe in all these things, but yet it is beyond his/her comprehension that the same person who did these things by the power of His word could possibly have spoken the forms of life that we see around us, as well as ourselves, into existence. The dissonance involved in that reasoning, that line of thought, just blows me away. It hardly seems possible for one person to hold such fully contradictory ideas as being true at the same time.
Jesus spoke recreation back into the bodies of many people during His stay here. His healing of the blind man whom he told to wash the mud out of his eyes at the pool of Siloam was nothing less than the recreation of the man's eyes. The man at the pool of Bethesda is another instance. The man had been unable to walk for 38 years so his body was wasted. And yet when Jesus told him to get up and walk he arose in perfect health. His muscles weren't atrophied. He didn't need physical therapy. He was whole immediately and from the story he spent the day walking around.
In all of Jesus' miracles He spoke and it was. He commanded and it stood fast. Yet Alate denies that power in the rejection of the story of creation. One side Alate says the miracles of Jesus are real. He created life, and completely restored life forms with nothing other than His voice, His word. On the other hand Alate says the Son of God did not create life forms by the power of His voice, His word. The contradiction between the two stances just blows me away.
The creation of life itself is by far a greater miracle than creating the forms in which life exists. Yet Alate says she believes in the greater miracle and rejects the lesser miracle. Even stranger is that in the miracles Jesus performed He demonstrated the ability to do both with just the power of His word. He spoke life into multiple people during His life here. He raised Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and the son of the widow of Nain to life. In Lazarus' case we know he had been dead for days, and in a climate like the middle east's his body was in the early stages of putrefaction. The fat in his body was already rancid. His flesh was in the early stages of rot. He was literally beginning to rot away. And yet when Jesus spoke him back to life he came out of the tomb healthy as he lived for years afterwards. In other words, Jesus' words recreated Lazurus' body.
Jesus performed other miracles in which His word restored the human life form too. He healed lepers multiple times. We know leprosy kills the flesh. It literally eats it away. Fingers, toes, the nose, etc... just disappear under the effects of leprosy. In other words, to heal a leper takes not only the destruction of the disease itself, but the restoration of the life form, the human body. Alate professes to believe in all these things, but yet it is beyond his/her comprehension that the same person who did these things by the power of His word could possibly have spoken the forms of life that we see around us, as well as ourselves, into existence. The dissonance involved in that reasoning, that line of thought, just blows me away. It hardly seems possible for one person to hold such fully contradictory ideas as being true at the same time.
Jesus spoke recreation back into the bodies of many people during His stay here. His healing of the blind man whom he told to wash the mud out of his eyes at the pool of Siloam was nothing less than the recreation of the man's eyes. The man at the pool of Bethesda is another instance. The man had been unable to walk for 38 years so his body was wasted. And yet when Jesus told him to get up and walk he arose in perfect health. His muscles weren't atrophied. He didn't need physical therapy. He was whole immediately and from the story he spent the day walking around.
In all of Jesus' miracles He spoke and it was. He commanded and it stood fast. Yet Alate denies that power in the rejection of the story of creation. One side Alate says the miracles of Jesus are real. He created life, and completely restored life forms with nothing other than His voice, His word. On the other hand Alate says the Son of God did not create life forms by the power of His voice, His word. The contradiction between the two stances just blows me away.
Right Divider
Body part
Once AGAIN you look to consensus instead of discussing the FACTS of the method used.
Nope... it's a figure based on so many assumption as to make it completely unreliable as a real scientific result.
Nobody is asking for a method that produces "the actual year", but at least one that is not based on MULTIPLE assumptions, all of which are unverifiable.
:dizzy:
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's based on a lot more than "multiple assumptions" as explained in detail here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe