Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth proofs, old earth attempts


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#41 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 27 March 2005 - 03:18 PM

Actually, there are several flood stories from different parts of the world.


View Post


And evidence of some whopping big local floods!
There was an episode of “Nova” a couple of years ago about a huge flood event involving the Black Sea as I recall about 4000 B.C. It seems that at that time the area of the read sea had been blocked from the Mediterranean by a natural earthen dam across the straights between Asia Minor and Europe. When this gave way, it was a spectacular event, and probably the basis for a lot of prehistoric flood stories.

If it weren’t for the insistence on a worldwide flood this could be used as proof of the Noah flood storie.

#42 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 27 March 2005 - 03:34 PM

Well I guess you'd have to call me one. But the only reason I say the whole bible has to be truth, is because God is supposed to be the representation of what truth is. Question: What are the requirements for being Holy? And is that not what God is supposed to be?

View Post



It just seems to me (and this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it) That if a person observes the universe around them and decides that it originated with a supreme being, the God of the Christian Bible being the best candidate, and He was worthy of worship, whether the Bible is inerrant or not (and it is after all a work of human hands and subject to the same errors as any other human endeavor) is a minor detail. If God is worthy of worship, then He’s worthy of worship period.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

#43 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2005 - 04:04 PM

And evidence of some whopping big local floods!
There was an episode of “Nova” a couple of years ago about a huge flood event involving the Black Sea as I recall about 4000 B.C. It seems that at that time the area of the read sea had been blocked from the Mediterranean by a natural earthen dam across the straights between Asia Minor and Europe. When this gave way, it was a spectacular event, and probably the basis for a lot of prehistoric flood stories.

If it weren’t for the insistence on a worldwide flood this could be used as proof of the Noah flood storie.

View Post


You believe Nova, I believe God.

#44 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2005 - 04:09 PM

It just seems to me (and this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it) That if a person observes the universe around them and decides that it originated with a supreme being, the God of the Christian Bible being the best candidate, and He was worthy of worship, whether the Bible is inerrant or not (and it is after all a work of human hands and subject to the same errors as any other human endeavor) is a minor detail. If God is worthy of worship, then He’s worthy of worship period.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

View Post


Do you think that all christians believe by blind faith only? What about scientists who decide in favor of a Creator? I don't believe in something because I can read about it. And that's why I don't believe evolution. I read it, just like I read God's word. And I made a decision.

#45 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2005 - 04:21 PM

Should scientists study how oil was created (so they can find more oil)?

Should scientists study how minerals were created (so they can find the metals, etc. that are essential to our modern society)?

Should scientists study how new diseases (like SARS) are created (so they can understand how to treat them, or stop them from "appearing" in the first place)?

In your view, exactly what fields are off-limits to science?  Geology, cosmology, particle physics, epidemeology...?

View Post


Is not science sticking it's nose into creation when it convinces people that evolution is a part of creation? And when people do this, science does not argue it, but allows it, which is the same as condoning what is said. And it also makes science step over into becomming a religion, because one of it's theories now includes a religious figure, and a religious book.

Should science always try and prove or search for a God they cannot even test? Like debating Noah's Flood. Why would science be interested unless their main goal is to disprove it and God? Because regardless of what evidence is found, it always has to conform to every theory they have. Or there has to be a second explaination to the evidence. So why search for something you never had an intent to prove, only disprove? Because your findings will always be bias when you go into something with that type of attitude.

#46 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 27 March 2005 - 05:14 PM

Why would science be interested unless their main goal is to disprove it and God?

View Post


If this is what you truly believe, it’s no wonder you take such a dim view of science.

#47 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 March 2005 - 11:59 PM

If this is what you truly believe, it’s no wonder you take such a dim view of science.

View Post


When clams are found on top of a mountain, and the only considered explaination by science is what? The mountain rose from the bottom of the sea. No flood (alternative explaination that denies God). Science is to give all considerations, but it does not where God is concerned. I watch science videos, and science t.v. programs all the time. Everytime I see evidence found that can have biblical value, science does not see it. Nor do they give it any consideration. Every program is designed to disprove any evidence that may even remotely support God. And I have yet to see one science program that would totally make, or theorize, an event that supports God, without sounding like it has been disproven, even if it is only a guess as to what probably happened by naturalistic means.

But yet, they will use God's word to research and find places to dig up to find evidence if past civilations. But on the other hand, they will claim more than half the book is mere myth, fantasies, poetry, in error, written by mere men that were not inspired by God, etc... Which all carry the same meaning, that it's a lie. And are constantly working to make the rest sound like a lie as well.

I wonder what one of the requirments are for reaching the upper levels of science is? For I see not one ever mention his faith in God. And how many are thrown out of the upper circles when they do? You may say that there are several scientists that believe in God. But are their futures, in science, to ever reach top positions while they retain their faith? Could they even discuss God in a positive manner at a scientific convention without damaging their scientific standing amoung fellow scientists? A room full of atheist welcomes no God. And will make sure that your view never affects the theories and the foundations of science they hold so dear. So to mention, God only seals your fate, in the scientific world that will always claim: there is no God.

What someone believes should not affect their standing in their field, if the field was not bias. And unless it is also a threat to what already exists in that field. Evidence found should have all considered possibilies, regardless of the direction it leads. Sought out to it's end, instead of blown out of the water without further investigation.

Example: If it were said that all the missing links were on the same mountain as the ark, science would spare no expense to get to it. Even as far as to risk their lives trying to uncover it. But the ark is up there. And how much has science even tried to bring it down and examine it? Why is it still up there? Is not this considered one of the greatest scientific finds? But, it does not support any known scientific theory does it? So it stays up their as a mystery. Because science knows to bring it down, they would have to scramble to do damage control, while trying to explain how something like this could exist when they have done so much to disprove God.

If science is not an athiest club only, name one scientist, that holds a very high position in science, and is a christian, and is not restricted from talking about his faith in scientific circles? Why would science restrict free speech and free expression in this manner, if God were not a threat to science, then having faith in Him should not be a problem. And from what I understand, most scientist's considered it a defection if one of them decides to believe in God.


Can belief in God and science work? Try to reach upper levels of science and see how far you get while trying to maintain your faith.

#48 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 28 March 2005 - 05:06 PM

When clams are found on top of a mountain, and the only considered explaination  by science is what? The mountain rose from the bottom of the sea. No flood (alternative explaination that denies God).


Saying "the flood did it" doesn't really explain anything.

Take the "oysters on Everest". (Note- I have no idea whether there actually are 10 foot oysters on Everest).

Were the oysters living up there during the flood? Then how did they grow to adult size within the flood timetable?

Were they washed up there? Then how could they be washed up from sea level to 20,000 feet (5 miles!) above sea level?

You have to provide some details of the scenario that actually got the oysters there (supported by physical evidence), if you want the flood story to be taken seriously.


I wonder what one of the requirments are for reaching the upper levels of science is? For I see not one ever mention his faith in God. And how many are thrown out of the upper circles when they do? You may say that there are several scientists that believe in God. But are their futures, in science, to ever reach top positions while they retain their faith?  Could they even discuss God in a positive manner at a scientific convention without damaging their scientific standing amoung fellow scientists? A room full of atheist welcomes no God. And will make sure that your view never affects the theories and the foundations of science they hold so dear. So to mention, God only seals your fate, in the scientific world that will always claim: there is no God.


I've known quite a few scientists who were regular church goers. My thesis advisor for one- he's now chairman of the geology department.

Scientists don't really care about each others religious beliefs, as long as they don't invoke untestable, unverifiable, unobservable mechanisms (like miracles) to explain the data.


Example: If it were said that all the missing links were on the same mountain as the ark, science would spare no expense to get to it. Even as far as to risk their lives trying to uncover it. But the ark is up there. And how much has science even tried to bring it down and examine it? Why is it still up there? Is not this considered one of the greatest scientific finds? But, it does not support any known scientific theory does it? So it stays up their as a mystery. Because science knows to bring it down, they would have to scramble to do damage control, while trying to explain how something like this could exist when they have done so much to disprove God.


Ark evidence would be a good subject for a new thread.

If science is not an athiest club only, name one scientist, that holds a very high position in science, and is a christian, and is not restricted from talking about his faith in scientific circles?


"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstien, referring to quantum mechanics

He's dead though (and Jewish); does that count? :D

#49 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 29 March 2005 - 11:41 AM

When clams are found on top of a mountain, and the only considered explaination  by science is what? The mountain rose from the bottom of the sea. No flood (alternative explaination that denies God).


And again, clams on Mt. Everest and other mountains are misrepresented. These clams are not just ON the mountain, they are PART OF the mountain as fossils filling large bands of limestone. The clams found loose on mountains are the result of erosion of those limestone layers. You must show how a global flood can lay down hundreds of feet of limestone, and only at the pinnacle of the mountain, and how millions of clams grew and died and were buried in those hundreds of feet of limestone.

A flood is not considered because a flood does not create hundreds of feet of limestone. If this did happen during a flood, then the entire outer surface of the mountain would be covered in limestone, not just the pinnacles. Also, limestone is created at very slow rates, centimeters per year.

Science is to give all considerations, but it does not where God is concerned.


Nor does science consider Vishnu, the Great Spirite, Hare Chrisna, and all other deities both past and present. It seems that science only ignores one more deity than christianity does.


But yet, they will use God's word to research and find places to dig up to find evidence if past civilations.


They also use myths from other cultures to do the same, such as the recent discovery of Troy. Finding the civilization does not support the myths. If this were so, the discovery of Troy supports the existence of the Greek and Roman pantheons.

I wonder what one of the requirments are for reaching the upper levels of science is? For I see not one ever mention his faith in God. And how many are thrown out of the upper circles when they do?


Do you have examples of scientists being thrown out because of their beliefs? Were they incorporating their religious beliefs into their science, or were they keeping them separate? I don't ask my car mechanic what his religious beliefs are, why should scientists be under scrutiny?

And just for kicks, here is a little quote from Charles Darwin:

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Does "breathed into" ring any bells?

#50 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2005 - 01:15 AM

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Does "breathed into" ring any bells?


Darwin wrote his book in a time where religion was very strong and powerful. Darwin knew that his idea totally attacked creation, and God's word. And Unlike today, people back then were not into so much compromise of the word of God. For there were only a few translations, and most used the KJV. So sticking to the word was more of the norm. And anything that went totally against it was not. And was often considered straight from the devil himself.

So Darwin knew he had to soften his book up somewhat. And him being a christian at one time, he also knew just how to do it. For if he had not done it, I can garuntee there would have been a book burning party where ever that book could be found. The mere mention of God, or His word, not only softened his book. But also confused many about the real meaning of his book. For if evolution really had anything to do with God, Darwin would not have had to recant his faith in order to believe it. And evolution would not be overwhelmingly believed by athiest.

Also, the lady hope story would be no big deal if God were not an issue. But where ever it's brought up, it's fought tooth and nail. For if Darwin truly recanted before dying, I'm happy he will be in heaven. And it should be no big deal. But to science, it is. And I have yet to see anyone explain that without sticking their foot in their mouth.

#51 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 01 April 2005 - 06:23 AM

Also, the lady hope story would be no big deal if God were not an issue. But where ever it's brought up, it's fought tooth and nail. For if Darwin truly recanted before dying, I'm happy he will be in heaven. And it should be no big deal. But to science, it is. And I have yet to see anyone explain that without sticking their foot in their mouth.

View Post


I think your mixing up historians and science. People interested in the history may fight the Lady Hope story base on the evidence, but science wouldn’t care if he had turned into a televangelist 5 minuets after the publication of On the Origin of Species (this would have been a huge waste of time due to the scarcity of TV’s at the time). History is full of examples of scientists pursuing irrational projects after the work they are remembered for. Newton in his later years was deeply involved in astrology. No self-respecting skeptic has any respect for this pseudoscience, yet a rock still falls at 32 feet per second per second.
Neither science or religion is immune from the cult of personality, but in the end it doesn’t have any bearing on the lasting validity of the underlying precepts. Lysenkoism wasn’t invalidated because Lysenko was a commie; it failed because the evidence didn’t support it. Christianity wasn’t invalidated because Jim Baker bilked a lot of investors; he was just a crook who happened to be a Christian.

#52 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2005 - 12:28 PM

Saying "the flood did it" doesn't really explain anything.

Take the "oysters on Everest".  (Note- I have no idea whether there actually are 10 foot oysters on Everest).

Were the oysters living up there during the flood?  Then how did they grow to adult size within the flood timetable?

Were they washed up there?  Then how could they be washed up from sea level to 20,000 feet (5 miles!) above sea level? 

You have to provide some details of the scenario that actually got the oysters there (supported by physical evidence), if you want the flood story to be taken seriously.
I've known quite a few scientists who were regular church goers.  My thesis advisor for one- he's now chairman of the geology department.

Scientists don't really care about each others religious beliefs, as long as they don't invoke untestable, unverifiable, unobservable mechanisms (like miracles) to explain the data.
Ark evidence would be a good subject for a new thread.
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstien, referring to quantum mechanics

He's dead though (and Jewish); does that count?   :D

View Post


And I know a lot of people who go to church to appease their spouse, or to just look good in the community. There's one guy at my work that wears a ring that has the fish sign on it. And he goes to church every Sunday. But if you even start to bring up God in a conversation with him, you will get your head bit off. And he won't discuss why he wears that ring. I already know why. His wife gave it to him, and his wife makes him go to church. So he appeases her by going and wearing the ring. But do these things make this person a child of God? Nope.

Just as Albert Einstien, or Charles Darwin mentioning God, gets them saved. It don't work that way. The mentioning of God from these two people was meant for an appeasement of those who do believe. It does not make them anymore closer to God than it makes me an athiest for reading about evolution. For it takes belief and faith, for what you say, mention or read to make a change in your life. For I could speak in a positive manner about evolution to appease the ones here that believe in it. But it don't change what I truly believe.

#53 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 01 April 2005 - 03:18 PM

Darwin wrote his book in a time where religion was very strong and powerful. Darwin knew that his idea totally attacked creation, and God's word. And Unlike today, people back then were not into so much compromise of the word of God. For there were only a few translations, and most used the KJV. So sticking to the word was more of the norm. And anything that went totally against it was not. And was often considered straight from the devil himself.


According to this reasoning, Galileo had to give up christianity to believe in a heliocentric solar system.

So Darwin knew he had to soften his book up somewhat. And him being a christian at one time, he also knew just how to do it.


He was a christian at the time he penned the first edition. He only gave up on christianity and God because of the death of his daughter. It had nothing to do with evolution. I don't know why creationists continue to twist history in this fashion. Lady of Hope to follow:

Also, the lady hope story would be no big deal if God were not an issue. But where ever it's brought up, it's fought tooth and nail.


Yes, it is fought because it is putting words in Darwin's mouth. He never wrote that letter nor is there any record of him recanting. Just more evidence of how desparate creationists really are. If they can't show how the theory is wrong, just like a politician, they try to smear the character of those involved. How about a look at the evidence upon which the theory is based. The theory of evolution is not based on the opinions of Darwin anymore than Germ Theory is based on the opinions of Koch. If Koch had proclaimed that germs did not cause disease, would you stop taking antibiotics?

The mentioning of God from these two people was meant for an appeasement of those who do believe.


Darwin was never trying to appease anyone. Unlike Galileo, he did not see the church as a threat. Einstein's use of the word "God" was never meant to have a deistic connotation. Einstein never believed in a personal God and said so on many occasions.

#54 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 01:31 AM

Ok, since you don't think Darwin used God and his word to soften the effect of his book. Tell me how far his book would have gotten in a society mainly made up of those who believe God, and his book never mentioned God? A book that not only denied creation of man by God, but without the mention of God would make it totally mock God. It would have been like bringing a bible to a satanist club. They probably would have burned it, and possibly you along with it.

People back in those times were set in their ways. Most would not even budge on what they believed. And it would not have taken much to raise a whole town riot to rid that town of something most would have tought as some sort of blasphemy. People killed Christ for the samething that they thought He was doing (blaspemy). But Christ would not compromise to keep this from happening. In my opinion, Darwin did. For what purpose mention God in something that has nothing to do with God? Did anyone ever ask Darwin why he did this? And if they did, I wonder if he told the truth on why?

Why would I say these things? Because if I would have wrote a book that had a simular affect as he did back then. I would have considered those factors. For to sell a book, you have to consider these things.

#55 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 April 2005 - 02:25 PM

Ok, since you don't think Darwin used God and his word to soften the effect of his book. Tell me how far his book would have gotten in a society mainly made up of those who believe God, and his book never mentioned God? A book that not only denied creation of man by God, but without the mention of God would make it totally mock God. It would have been like bringing a bible to a satanist club. They probably would have burned it, and possibly you along with it.

People back in those times were set in their ways. Most would not even budge on what they believed. And it would not have taken much to raise a whole town riot to rid that town of something most would have tought as some sort of blasphemy. People killed Christ for the samething that they thought He was doing (blaspemy). But Christ would not compromise to keep this from happening. In my opinion, Darwin did. For what purpose mention God in something that has nothing to do with God? Did anyone ever ask Darwin why he did this? And if they did, I wonder if he told the truth on why?

Why would I say these things? Because if I would have wrote a book that had a simular affect as he did back then. I would have considered those factors. For to sell a book, you have to consider these things.

View Post


Perhaps Darwin had some lingering faith that he wove into his own theory with the “Breathed Life Into” quote something like a theistic evolutionist? Perhaps, like you say, it was just a form of appeasement or some sort of softening up tactic, perhaps Darwin had become a hard core atheist but knew the flack he would receive and ‘chickened out' a bit. Who knows, does it matter? the personal motives do not alter the facts/theory.

The fact that "The Origin of Species" became an best seller reflect the open mindedness of times, this was not some puritan society one might think, this was a nation caught up in the post renaissance industrialisation and global superpower of the age of middle class England (the wrenched poor even more disenchanted).

This was an era more akin the wild west, than the Pilgrims. Science was making huge inroad not just in theoretical but in very practical ways that affected every man.

Cant remember where I read the quote but during those times the clergy had little difficulty in recruiting missionaries to go to the like of Africa, yet the need was to get missionaries to go to Newcastle! (paraphrased from a church article).

#56 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 04 April 2005 - 02:20 PM

Ok, since you don't think Darwin used God and his word to soften the effect of his book. Tell me how far his book would have gotten in a society mainly made up of those who believe God, and his book never mentioned God?


As far as every other scientific book of the time that never mentioned God. Pasteur's work comes to mind, as does Koch. Both of these men never mentioned God in their scientific works and yet their ideas of bacteria, germs, and disease were accepted. Why should it be any different with Darwin?

A book that not only denied creation of man by God, but without the mention of God would make it totally mock God. It would have been like bringing a bible to a satanist club. They probably would have burned it, and possibly you along with it.


Where did "Origin of Species" say that God did not create the earth and the life on it? Please be specific. It seems to me that Origin simply laid out the HOW while christianity points to the WHO.

You seem to be taking the same route that the Inquisition took with Galileo. If your interpretation of the Bible is shown to be wrong, the new interpretation has to be anti-God. Science is no more anti-God than auto repair. Not mentioning God does not make something anti-God.

#57 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 10 May 2005 - 09:57 PM

Hey, sorry guys, I completely forgot about this forum, and haven't been on in like two months. So just what I've read on this page real quick.

"Take the "oysters on Everest". (Note- I have no idea whether there actually are 10 foot oysters on Everest).

Were the oysters living up there during the flood? Then how did they grow to adult size within the flood timetable?

Were they washed up there? Then how could they be washed up from sea level to 20,000 feet (5 miles!) above sea level?

You have to provide some details of the scenario that actually got the oysters there (supported by physical evidence), if you want the flood story to be taken seriously."

The 10 ft. long oysters were living in the OCEAN. The comet comes a long, shakes the earth a bit, causes the crust to stretch, and crack, subterannian water chambers explode with water and blast everything with a force exceeding that of 10 billion hydrogen bombs. The sides of the chambers eroded away, causing the mantle to spring upward in the middle creating today's ocean ridges. The continents slid away from these, and they got up to speeds of around 45 mph, before they encountered two types of resistance. A: their lubricating water ran out from beneath them, or B: they ran into another continent. Meanwhile, the dirt is getting poured all over the poor oysters, they get buried, die, and can't open. Oysters and clams open when they die. The North American plate slams into the Eurasian plate, and uplifts the Himalayas in a very short time, and you end with 10ft tall oysters that were on the ocean, are now lifted up on top of Mts. all over the world, and they sat there for a few years under a bunch of dirt before they fossilized. See
http://www.cryingvoi...ydroplate3.html for more info.

#58 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:48 AM

Oops. Duh. The north american plate didn't slam into the eurasian, how stupid can i be? Lol. The Eurasian slammed into the pacific. Sorry if it didn't make sense before.

#59 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 May 2005 - 02:05 PM

Hey, sorry guys, I completely forgot about this forum, and haven't been on in like two months. So just what I've read on this page real quick.

"Take the "oysters on Everest".  (Note- I have no idea whether there actually are 10 foot oysters on Everest).

Were the oysters living up there during the flood?  Then how did they grow to adult size within the flood timetable?

Were they washed up there?  Then how could they be washed up from sea level to 20,000 feet (5 miles!) above sea level? 

You have to provide some details of the scenario that actually got the oysters there (supported by physical evidence), if you want the flood story to be taken seriously."

The 10 ft. long oysters were living in the OCEAN. The comet comes a long, shakes the earth a bit, causes the crust to stretch, and crack, subterannian water chambers explode with water and blast everything with a force exceeding that of 10 billion hydrogen bombs. The sides of the chambers eroded away, causing the mantle to spring upward in the middle creating today's ocean ridges. The continents slid away from these, and they got up to speeds of around 45 mph, before they encountered two types of resistance. A: their lubricating water ran out from beneath them, or B: they ran into another continent. Meanwhile, the dirt is getting poured all over the poor oysters, they get buried, die, and can't open. Oysters and clams open when they die. The North American plate slams into the Eurasian plate, and uplifts the Himalayas in a very short time, and you end with 10ft tall oysters that were on the ocean, are now lifted up on top of Mts. all over the world, and they sat there for a few years under a bunch of dirt before they fossilized. See
http://www.cryingvoi...ydroplate3.html for more info.

View Post


The biggest problem that comes to mind for catastrophe based geology:

Heat – Rapid changes like you proposed would, I think, cause rock to melt rather than mould.
Speed – Quickly bending rock would cause it to shatter and fragment, rather than bend.
Various areas of continents have been submerged, dry, and submerged again.


Questions:

Could a continent actually ‘float’ on water?

What prevents the water from squeezing out from under it at the edge of the continental shelf, do you propose the continent has a water tight skirt?

Could a continent survive speeds of 45MPH?

How dose the dirt get ‘poured’ over the land, what would a formation actually look like if this were the case? And what would you find embedded within it?

#60 Guest_nsmith505_*

Guest_nsmith505_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2005 - 08:13 AM

Well lets see, there's also metamorphic rock on top of mount everest.  Metamorphic rock takes heat and pressure to form.  So water must have been well abouve Mt.  Everest.  Also water has a relatively flat top and being high above Mt. Everest, the highest point on earth, it certainly does not look like a local flood.

View Post


As indicated in previous posts, the metamorphic rock/limestone/fossilized inverts. were formed before Mt. Everest was even formed. To assume that ANY flooding event rose to nearly 30,000 ft. seems highly unlikely.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users