Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Lon]

What about Keynesian economists? Or lawn bowlers? What do they think about Cosmic Microwave Background radiation?

Stuart

:think:

First, a bit off topic from 'kinds.'

Second, I'm not even sure 'where' we are in the universe that a big-bang can be seen from what we are actually seeing. Some kind of bang, I think yes but I've been told we've no idea what it did other than explode, much like other explosions we are seeing in space. We have no idea how big the universe is, so can only 'speculate' what is happening in our cul-de-sac of the universe (if we are even that big, all things seem a bit presumptuous to me when we are trying to define space. It is ALWAYS bigger than we imagined. I'm looking forward to the next space telescope launch.

 

[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?
6Days, you still haven't answered this key question.

I answered you with..."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."

I would agree with you GC, that the couple meter deep fossil beds of clams are NOT on Everest but other places on earth. {b]I was wrong. (Bivalve fossil beds /fossilized closed clams are found on other mountain ranges) . The marine fossils on Everest are mostly not bivalves/ clams, although there are some.

However the fossil graveyards on Everest and other mountain ranges are certainly evidence of catastrophic burial. As explained in my original answer to you...shelled marine organism don't fossilize under normal situations. To have millions of organisms fossilized together is evidence of catastrophic burial that preserved them from normal decay processes. (A whale on a beach is torn apart by scavengers and rots. Well preserved fossil whales is evidence of catastrophic burial and the global flood)

 

[6days]

The Big Bang is a conclusion about the beginning of the universe, based on evidence.

Likewise, the creator God of the Bible is also a conclusion about the beginning of the universe, based on evidence.

But...as Stripe says... origins of the universe is a bit off topic. Variation and adaptation that we see in the world around us fits the evidence of God's creation of 'kinds'.

 

[Stuu]

:think:

First, a bit off topic from 'kinds.'

Second, I'm not even sure 'where' we are in the universe that a big-bang can be seen from what we are actually seeing. Some kind of bang, I think yes but I've been told we've no idea what it did other than explode, much like other explosions we are seeing in space. We have no idea how big the universe is, so can only 'speculate' what is happening in our cul-de-sac of the universe (if we are even that big, all things seem a bit presumptuous to me when we are trying to define space. It is ALWAYS bigger than we imagined. I'm looking forward to the next space telescope launch.

I recommend reading about it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Likewise, the creator God of the Bible is also a conclusion about the beginning of the universe, based on evidence.

But...as Stripe says... origins of the universe is a bit off topic. Variation and adaptation that we see in the world around us fits the evidence of God's creation of 'kinds'.

So any old thing can count as evidence for gods.

If there was no adaptation or variation that would fit 'creation of kinds' too.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

So any old thing can count as evidence for gods.

If there was no adaptation or variation that would fit 'creation of kinds' too.

Stuart

How about we look at what we've got and rule out the impossible. You know: Science. :up:

 

[Lon]

I recommend reading about it.

Stuart

I have "before, there was nothing." We do say 'ex nihlo' but we don't literally mean 'nothing.' God was there first and doing the creating. This scientist, however, means 'nothing.' I'm not sure how he can think he is being logical. Nothing can only produce nothing. He is advocating magic.

It is, again, off-topic, other than perhaps the evolutionists idea of magic. It certainly is NOT logical.

 

[Stuu]

How about we look at what we've got and rule out the impossible. You know: Science. :up:

Yep, done that. Got as far as atheism. What's next?

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Yep, done that. Got as far as atheism. What's next?

Stuart

:up: Atheism IS impossible. Wait, what...?

 

[Stuu]

I have "before, there was nothing." We do say 'ex nihlo' but we don't literally mean 'nothing.' God was there first and doing the creating. This scientist, however, means 'nothing.' I'm not sure how he can think he is being logical. Nothing can only produce nothing. He is advocating magic.

The matter and energy that we observer, and indeed from which we are made, is borrowed gravitational energy from the expansion of space-time. If we went into a Big Crunch and returned to the singularity from which we came, all that matter and energy would be paid back to gravitational energy again. Matter and energy (the same thing, actually) are "positive" and gravitational energy of space-time is "negative" and so the total energy of the universe is zero. That sure sounds like a synonym for nothing to me.

What was that about gods again? What do they do? How do they do whatever it is?

It is, again, off-topic, other than perhaps the evolutionists idea of magic. It certainly is NOT logical.

Who said it had to conform to what humans think is logical?

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

I answered you with..."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."

No, it isn't. Can you really not ever see alternative explanations? The rocks on Everest are partially metamorphosed, in a manner that needs the temperatures and pressures that are found several km below the surface. No amount of flood water will do that, but tectonic activity and uplift will. The rock was formed on a shallow sea bed (the Tethys Sea), it was buried and lithified. Further faulting and uplift moved it up (the faulting can be clearly seen, with granite atop sedimentary rocks. How did your flood do that?)

I would agree with you GC, that the couple meter deep fossil beds of clams are NOT on Everest but other places on earth. I was wrong. (Bivalve fossil beds /fossilized closed clams are found on other mountain ranges) . The marine fossils on Everest are mostly not bivalves/ clams, although there are some.

You still haven't given any evidence of 'closed' bivalves in any great number being found on Everest, as you and Brown claim. I believe it is simply made up, for rhetorical effect to persuade the uneducated. But you should be able to find the evidence, shouldn't you? I think you are lying, though.

However the fossil graveyards on Everest and other mountain ranges are certainly evidence of catastrophic burial. As explained in my original answer to you...shelled marine organism don't fossilize under normal situations. To have millions of organisms fossilized together is evidence of catastrophic burial that preserved them from normal decay processes. (A whale on a beach is torn apart by scavengers and rots. Well preserved fossil whales is evidence of catastrophic burial and the global flood)

The shells routinely fossilise, since they are inorganic and would have to dissolve, which would have been the case with Brown's hydroplate theory with all that dissolved carbon dioxide gas forming the limestone. (Dissolved CO2 makes water very acidic, dissolving all the shells, even for living creatures.)

But you are content with lying again, since this has all been explained to you already, and the high school science is easily verifiable.

 

[gcthomas]

I have "before, there was nothing." We do say 'ex nihlo' but we don't literally mean 'nothing.' God was there first and doing the creating. This scientist, however, means 'nothing.' I'm not sure how he can think he is being logical. Nothing can only produce nothing. He is advocating magic.

It is, again, off-topic, other than perhaps the evolutionists idea of magic. It certainly is NOT logical.

There is a problem with the idea of cause and effect when applied to origins discussions. Time is a property of events occurring within the universe, so you cannot use ideas relating to time when discussing the reason for the existence of the universe. It is like asking what is further along a piece of string than the end of the string: the question makes no sense. Cause/effect have to happen in time order, and without a before there cannot have been a direct cause. The beginning of the universe/multiverse does not require, and indeed cannot have, a specific causal event in the usual meaning of the words.

There is a real question as to why there is something rather than nothing, but that applies to claims for gods also. So in either case there can be no certainty - only philosophical pondering.

 

[Stripe]

:up: Atheism IS impossible. Wait, what...?

:chuckle:

He didn't think that one through very well, did he?

Yep, done that. Got as far as atheism. What's next?

Hold on a second, sonshine. Since when do you get to dictate what has been ruled out?

How about you engage rationally: Establish the facts we agree on and then analyze what we disagree on without assuming the truth of your religion. :up:

 

[Lon]

Matter and energy (the same thing, actually) are "positive" and gravitational energy of space-time is "negative" and so the total energy of the universe is zero. That sure sounds like a synonym for nothing to me.

:nono: Forgive me for thinking the same about you as I do him, now...

What was that about gods again? What do they do? How do they do whatever it is?

"Something" has always existed, forever. Most people cannot wrap their heads around an eternal non-beginning, but even you advocate an eternity of 'nothing' not even atoms. This just isn't possible. It is a postulation, but it isn't a logical one.

Who said it had to conform to what humans think is logical?

Stuart

You have great faith in what is unsubstantial.
It is quite an admission of believing in something that isn't logically there.

 

[Stuu]

:nono: Forgive me for thinking the same about you as I do him, now...

"Something" has always existed, forever. Most people cannot wrap their heads around an eternal non-beginning, but even you advocate an eternity of 'nothing' not even atoms. This just isn't possible. It is a postulation, but it isn't a logical one.


You have great faith in what is unsubstantial.
It is quite an admission of believing in something that isn't logically there.

I don't think you have thought about any of this very deeply.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

:chuckle:

He didn't think that one through very well, did he?


Hold on a second, sonshine. Since when do you get to dictate what has been ruled out?

How about you engage rationally: Establish the facts we agree on and then analyze what we disagree on without assuming the truth of your religion. :up:

Hilarious. Tell us another story of how you are willing to suspend judgement when there isn't sufficient evidence, and how you are prepared to be entirely open-minded about the existence of Russell's teapot or your god for that matter.

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

but even you advocate an eternity of 'nothing' not even atoms.

I don't think any theorists propose an eternity of nothing, as time needs a universe and matter to be a rational concept. Since time is a property of matter in the universe, it makes no sense to talk about an ultimate causal event, since a cause requires a time before time started. There are much better proposals, especially as you agree that something has always existed - despite the idea of 'always' being rather more slippery that you seem to grasp.

For example, that thing that has always existed ("just is") could be the multi-dimensional space-time object that we call the universe (or multiverse, in the most likely theory of eternal chaotic inflation). No need to postulate entities beyond their necessity — I find it as easy to imagine a universe that 'just is' as a godly being, and see it as much more likely since it needn't have such built-in complexity that a god would need, nor need it match bronze-age mythology.

 

[6days]

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.

The rock was formed on a shallow sea bed (the Tethys Sea), it was buried and lithified. Further faulting and uplift moved it up (the faulting can be clearly seen, with granite atop sedimentary rocks. How did your flood do that?)

You are close to what actually happened. It wasn't a shallow sea, but instead tsunamis of water born sediment washing over the continents. Thats why marine fossils are found on every mountain range on earth. Thats why we find fossil graveyards containg even soft body organisms like jellyfish. Faulting / uplifting is precisely the Biblical flood model. " At Your rebuke they (waters) fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth." Psalm 104

You still haven't given any evidence of 'closed' bivalves in any great number being found on Everest, as you and Brown claim. I believe it is simply made up, for rhetorical effect to persuade the uneducated. But you should be able to find the evidence, shouldn't you? I think you are lying, though.

You must be a bigger fan of Brown than me? I'm not sure what he he says about clams on Everest. And.... you obviously did not read my last comment where I agreed with you?

 

[6days]

If there was no adaptation or variation that would fit 'creation of kinds' too.

That would better fit the evolutionist model. They claim that good design and poor design is evidence for their beliefs. They claim functionality and non functionality supports their beliefs...etc.

 

[Stuu]

That would better fit the evolutionist model. They claim that good design and poor design is evidence for their beliefs. They claim functionality and non functionality supports their beliefs...etc.

So evolution by natural selection fits no adaptation based on no variation.

Stuart