Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jonahdog]

Nope.

The record is clear. OP presents an argument that has been expanded on. You have done nothing to defend your precious Darwinism and have instead relied on nonsense like this to move the conversation as far as possible from the examination of the semantics of your religion.

Kind is a clear and well-defined concept, while species is vague and malleable — as evolutionists need it to be. Your word is useless in a scientific discussion.

Yes, Stripey, the record is clear. You misrepresented my post in a dishonest way. Is your god happy with you?

And my recollection is that I was asking 6 days a specific question, which I am not sure he has ever specifically answered.

Neither of those is unusual here. You and 6 days are among the favored and can do what you wish here.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, Stripey, the record is clear. You misrepresented my post in a dishonest way. Is your god happy with you?And my recollection is that I was asking 6 days a specific question, which I am not sure he has ever specifically answered.Neither of those is unusual here. You and 6 days are among the favored and can do what you wish here.

Darwinists will do anything to ensure that their precious religion is insulated from critique.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's not hard to figure out Jose.
Evolutionism is a belief and not science, so why are "scientists working on hypotheses" about evolutionism?

Because you're wrong and evolution is science.

But we both agree that creationism isn't science (and so does the scientific community and the legal system). With that level of agreement that creationism isn't science, why then are "scientists working on hypothesis" about something that everyone agrees isn't science?

And do you understand the consequences of forming entire mountain ranges in less than a year?

 

[6days]

Because you're wrong and evolution is science.

If you mean common ancestry beliefs... no its religion..

And do you understand the consequences of forming entire mountain ranges in less than a year?

You might want to debate that with someone who says that.*

 

[Jose Fly]

If you mean common ancestry beliefs... no its religion..

That's what you believe, but that only matters to you.

You might want to debate that with someone who says that.*

John Morris was wrong when he said "No, Noah's flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them"?

And again, why are "scientists working on hypothesis" about creationism, when everyone agrees isn't science?

 

[6days]

John Morris was wrong when he said "No, Noah's flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them?"

*

Yes he says processes AFTER the flood. You left out this part of the quote.....**"Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.


"At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!

"Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood. That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised, back in Genesis."

 

[Jose Fly]

So the entire Himalaya range didn't exist prior to the flood, but were formed afterwards, correct?

Again, do you understand the necessary physical consequences of that?

 

[6days]

Jose.... you have been answered many times... many threads.
You are forgetful.... or stupid....or is that a false dichotomy?

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, I figured you'd eventually play the "I already answered" cop-out card. Anything you can do to get out of actually having to get specific, eh?

Oh well, I guess if it's "just a belief" as we all seem to agree, it is pretty pointless to ask you specific questions about it. The Bible certainly doesn't give you anything to go on and your creationist sources only make it worse by proposing completely absurd scenarios where entire continents race across the globe without generating much heat. At least Baumgartner admitted it was a problem.

So I'll just finish with the same thing I say to Scientologists when they talk about their beliefs about thetans and Lord Xenu...."Have fun with that!" :wave:

 

[Jose Fly]

To give an indication of the sort of complete nuttery that creationists have come up with to solve this heat problem, I give you Creationwiki...

The main problem with this theory is that it generates too much heat, but this can be dealt with by several methods.

1. A rapid expansion of space would remove large amounts of heat. This could be either universal or local.
2. Based on M-theory a super cold extremely near parallel universe could serve as a heat sink.
3. A direct act of God.
4. The waters from the deep may have been freezing cold, which would absorb excess heat.

Oh my.....it manages to be both hilarious and sad. :chuckle: :doh:

 

[6days]

To give an indication of the sort of complete nuttery that creationists have come up with to solve this heat problem, I give you*Creationwiki...

Haaa haaaaa ho ho ho...... Now I understand why you kept repeating questions already answered. Sorry to dissappoint you Jose that I did not use one of the answers you were waiting for.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sorry to dissappoint you Jose that I did not use one of the answers you were waiting for.

Actually, that's the first I've seen of those answers at creationwiki. I figured you'd dodge and avoid the question before ultimately declaring that you'd already answered, without saying what that answer was or where you posted it of course. And sure enough....

I also found THIS from ICR's Baumgardner...

"Such large-scale tectonic change cannot be accommodated within the Biblical time scale if the physical laws describing these processes have been time invariant."

IOW, this doesn't work without miracles. But what else can one expect from a religious belief? :chuckle:

 

[6days]

*IOW, this doesn't work without miracles. But what else can one expect from a religious belief?*

*

What we expect from your religious belief is a "willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense.... *in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories..."*

Richard Lewontin, evolutionist, geneticist

For complete quote google 'divine foot in the door'

 

[Jonahdog]

Darwinists will do anything to ensure that their precious religion is insulated from critique.

Big difference between us little Stripey. I really try not to lie.

 

[Stripe]

Big difference between us little Stripey. I really try not to lie.

You're desperate to avoid the topic. You'll say anything to insulate your religion from analysis.

 

[Jonahdog]

Actually stripe-o, I went back and looked at the first post by Musty in this thread. Interesting how he did not provide and accurate quote of the Economist (peer reviewed? ah lets leave that out of the discussion for the moment). He added his own spin. Are you two related or does dishonesty just fit into the TOL fundy process?

 

[gcthomas]

*

Yes he says processes AFTER the flood. You left out this part of the quote.....**"Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.

Why does the presence of 'clams' on the summit indicate catastrophic flood? Why couldn't they just have died, been buried, fossilised and uplifted after the rock formed as is the scientific explanation?

 

[Stripe]

Actually stripe-o, I went back and looked at the first post by Musty in this thread. Interesting how he did not provide and accurate quote of the Economist (peer reviewed? ah lets leave that out of the discussion for the moment). He added his own spin. Are you two related or does dishonesty just fit into the TOL fundy process?

Nope. The quote is entirely accurate. He might have used a non-standard method of adding a minor comment — which does nothing to change the quote nor does it confuse matters. You're just determined to talk about anything other than the substance of the post.

 

[6days]

Why does the presence of 'clams' on the summit indicate catastrophic flood? Why couldn't they just have died, been buried, fossilised and uplifted after the rock formed as is the scientific explanation?

Even under your scenario you are agreeing that the earth was submerged at one time or another. Its evidence the earth has been under water.

But to answer more directly..... clams don't fossilise under normal circumstances. Immediatly upon death clam shells open. Oxidation weakens the shell and they eventually crumble. The millions of fossil clams on Everest are in seams a couple meters deep and in the closed position. These clams were rapidly buried in sediment and preserved.

 

[gcthomas]

The millions of fossil clams on Everest are in seams a couple meters deep and in the closed position. These clams were rapidly buried in sediment and preserved.

You have been deceived, 6Days. Clams (members of the mollusc order bivalvia) do indeed have springy ligament hinges that spring the shells open when the closing muscles stop operating, but the shells found in the summit limestone (a metamorphic rock actually) are not bivalves, so are not clams. They are actually brachiopods; they unrelated to clams and not even molluscs.

Brachiopods have a different hinge system and have separate opening and closing muscles. They do not open on death.

So you fail, again.