toldailytopic: Should creation be taught in public school?

[kmoney]

Do the Illuminati know about all this?

:shocked:

:noid:

Yes we do. lain:

I mean..:noid:..yes they do. Errrr, I mean they probably do. :noid:

lain:



:noid:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes we do. lain:

I mean..:noid:..yes they do. Errrr, I mean they probably do. :noid:

lain:



:noid:

Count, one thing that can't be said of you is 'illuminated'...

lain:



lain:

 

[kmoney]

Count, one thing that can't be said of you is 'illuminated'...

lain:



lain:

:mmph:

Be careful about what you say there, Fluffster. We have friends all over the world and some of them might pay you a visit. lain:

:reals:


lain:

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

:blabla:

And the two of you will say anything to put distance between the truth and what is being spoken about:

I have given clear and rational reasons for my explanation of Genesis 1. Alate has given no reasons or explanations for her rejection of the plain reading.

You've given zero reasons. Let's list them:

[LIST=1]
[/LIST]

See? Zero.

Genesis one quite clearly puts the firmament described in verses 6-8 on the surface of the Earth - in the midst of all the water that was on the surface of the Earth. God planned to live there so He called it His home - Heaven.

This analysis:

...is perfectly reasonable despite your insistence (and zero reasons) that it is not.

Have a nice day!

Strange then that a supposed global flood would produce quite different local results in terms of what was in the sedimentary "deposits".

It's not really strange at all.

Have you ever heard of a thing called topography?

However, referring only to "deposits" imo rather tries to avoid the fact that these deposits are in fact found in multiple sedimentary layers, which usually shows multiple alternating diverse periods of marine, land and climatic types. Never one consistent global flood though for some reason, probably because there wasn't one.

Actually it's the divisions between those layers that is the most interesting aspect. :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

So Stripe has it all figured out and the scientific community are trying to quell all the "compelling evidence" for a young earth. Right, ok, makes perrrrrfect sense....

lain:

 

[Stripe]

So Stripe has it all figured out and the scientific community are trying to quell all the "compelling evidence" for a young earth. Right, ok, makes perrrrrfect sense....Plain:

I see you have nothing of value to contribute to a science thread once again, Brain.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I see you have nothing of value to contribute to a science thread once again, Brain.

And you have nothing but bluster to avoid direct questions in turn.

Why does the science world reject a young earth if there is such "compelling evidence" to support it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

:mmph:

Be careful about what you say there, Fluffster. We have friends all over the world and some of them might pay you a visit. lain:

:reals:


lain:

Will any of them be bringing sprouts?

lain:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Regarding alates and arthurbrains conversation with stripe concerning flood geology........ The evidence is overwhelming against the sediments being laid down in one year. However, the evidence does not show them being laid down over 4 billion years either, other than radiometric dating. All of it could have been laid down within 200,000 years. One thing to consider is the possibility of an ancient crust reduced to gravel, sand, and silt and a few small boulders. Todays crust and sediments could simply be the result of reworking those sediments with the help of water, tectonics and extensive volcanism.

This is the pretty much why you can't radiometrically date sedimentary rocks (and I suppose metamorphic rocks too). All it's going to tell you (if anything) is how old the parent material is supposed to be. Igneous is what you want to use, because it comes out fresh, so to speak.

 

[kmoney]

Will any of them be bringing sprouts?

lain:

Yes. Many sprouts. lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes. Many sprouts. lain:

Well obviously it won't be you knocking on my door then. There's a relief...

lain:

 

[Rusha]

Well obviously it won't be you knocking on my door then. There's a relief...

lain:

No worries, I will be doing the knocking.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No worries, I will be doing the knocking.

:shocked:

 

[alwight]

Have you ever heard of a thing called topography?

Why yes I have.
One such example of topography around here where I live are chalk cliffs which are quite normal for this region. Chalk is made up of the shells of billions of marine micro-organisms that accumulated over millions of years.
Presumably chalk must have formed before the your supposed global flood or else chalk cliffs or layers would be found everywhere.

Actually it's the divisions between those layers that is the most interesting aspect. :up:

So are you suggesting that they might indicate multiple events occuring? :thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Why yes I have.

Great! :up:

But why did you then start talking about chalk?

Presumably chalk must have formed before the your supposed global flood or else chalk cliffs or layers would be found everywhere.

Now you're even more confused.

Chalk is made up of calcium carbonate. CaCO₃ is found all over the world in sedimentary rocks. In order to get this dispersion you need a thorough mixing of the water with the sediment before deposition. And you also need a mechanism where almost pure CaCO₃ can be dumped to form your cliffs.

While I wouldn't say it is impossible for a "millions of years" process to make your cliffs, a global flood is by far the more reasonable explanation.

So are you suggesting that they might indicate multiple events occuring? :thumb:

Depends on what you mean by "multiple events". There was one major event, a global flood, which lasted about a year. But within that flood there were obviously different stages. And we are still seeing the after-effects of the flood today.

So - one event, many stages.

 

[alwight]

Great! :up:

But why did you then start talking about chalk?

Now you're even more confused.

I'm always confused by creationists Stripe.
But to explain a bit more then, Chalk cliffs are topography 'round here where I live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Needles

Chalk is made up of calcium carbonate. CaCO₃ is found all over the world in sedimentary rocks. In order to get this dispersion you need a thorough mixing of the water with the sediment before deposition. And you also need a mechanism where almost pure CaCO₃ can be dumped to form your cliffs.

Then it would be found absolutely everywhere in all deposits since it contains the remains of Coccolithophores (marine micro-fossils), but yet it isn't.

While I wouldn't say it is impossible for a "millions of years" process to make your cliffs, a global flood is by far the more reasonable explanation.

Then there would have to be layers of chalk absolutely everywhere if it happened anywhere, assuming there was a single global flood of course.

Depends on what you mean by "multiple events". There was one major event, a global flood, which lasted about a year. But within that flood there were obviously different stages. And we are still seeing the after-effects of the flood today.

So - one event, many stages.

Really? Some of them seem to have been arid dessert stages somehow, during a global flood, to which no doubt you'll have a perfectly good explanation.

 

[Stripe]

I'm always confused by creationists Stripe.

Well, that explains it then.

But to explain a bit more then, Chalk cliffs are topography 'round here where I live.

Oh, well when you talk about topography it really is irrelevant to talk about what kinds of rocks make it that way. Especially when trying to answer the question you first raised. Why did you leap to a new question anyway?

Then it would be found absolutely everywhere in all deposits since it contains the remains of Coccolithophores (marine micro-fossils), but yet it isn't.

1. It would not be found absolutely everywhere. But it is fairly ubiquitous.
2. The vast majority is not of biological origin.

Then there would have to be layers of chalk absolutely everywhere if it happened anywhere, assuming there was a single global flood of course.

Not pure deposits. :nono:

Really? Some of them seem to have been arid dessert stages somehow

Wow. Ice cream ore apple pie? :chuckle:

during a global flood, to which no doubt you'll have a perfectly good explanation.

Yip.

 

[Persephone66]

I think this sums up this thread nicely.

 

[Stuu]

You call that sane? I invoke general relativity.

Well, I wasn't going to question its sanity to give you an excuse, but strictly the illusion idea is a philosophical position that falls back to the same basic assumptions as empirical science does, so I can't really object to it.

Anyway, I'll bite. How does general relativity help you to explain how the earth appeared tens of thousands of years after the extinction of the Neanderthals?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

2. The vast majority is not of biological origin.

Show us the evidence that ANY of it is not originally derived from a biological source, dissolved, recrystallised or reprecipitated though it may have been. It is cheating to call dissolved and reprecipitated biological sediments "abiogenic".

There must be an isotopic composition study that is relevant.

Do you have any expert knowledge about this Stripe?

Do you know any geology Stripe?

Do you know anything?

Stuart