[_ Old Earth _] THe fossil record

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

Try taking a few frogs, hermit crabs, shellfish, etc. and putting them in a pot and boiling it. What do you think will happen? This is all irrelevant anyway, because your analogy isn't even representative of the situation. I never once said that a huge, Mt. Everest - sized glob of lava would somehow appear in the middle of the oceans as the only side effect of your rapid continent formation.

Your thinking is so flawed, irrelevant, and misrepresentative and your common sense is so lacking, I don’t know where to begin. Do you actually think for a moment that you could completely boil 2 inches of water covering the area of 28 football fields using even a thousand Dixie cups full of molten lava even if you dumped them all at once? While that may not be completely representative of the situation, it should certainly have helped you visualize the actual reality. Since you say most mountains are not volcanic in origin, most of the upheavals would not have generated that kind of heat at all, since they would not force lava to the surface if they merely pushed up mountains from under the surface. The heat that is generated by underwater eruptions ends up as steam and the lava cools rapidly when it hits the seawater. You should check out some volcano sites and read about them before you make your wild assertions. The damage of each would be very localized in comparison to the water volume.

Jimbob wrote:

For all it matters, it (the Ark) could take up 10 square miles and be made of solid titanium with diamond armor and nuclear fusion reactors, everyone aboard would still be killed by what you're proposing. Not to mention you have still not addressed the problems of tsunamis, volcanic ash, lack of geological evidence for such a catastrophe, and all the other problems affiliated with flood geology in general

You are obviously still tired and not thinking clearly. Your estimate of the surface of the world was off by a million square miles and yet you persist in your ‘Chicken Little of the sea’ cries bewailing the boiling waters under Noah’s ark and around the entire world. Get a grip, get a nap, get a clue.
You have glossed over my explanations of tsunamis, volcanic ash, and fossil evidence as if you hadn’t even read them. Let’s reason out few things here.
A. Yes, to destruction. No, to boiling and deep frying the entire planet. The Bible says there was worldwide destruction (CATASTROPHE) where all air breathing creatures died, except Noah and those in the ark. It was a catastrophic event that entailed flood waters covering the entire surface of the world to a depth of 15 cubits above the tallest mountains, (TSUNAMIS) the outpouring of rain from the windows of heaven, the breaking up of the great fountains of the deep releasing millions of tons of water (TSUNAMIS) washing mountains of earth into layered piles deposited on the higher ground (GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: LAYERS) and the death of all land dwellers and certainly some sea life as well. (GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: FOSSILS OF ALL KINDS IN WEIRD PLACES) It was a fairly complete destruction but there is no need to take it beyond the recorded history of events either.

B. While volcanic lava would raise the temperatures immediately around the site of the flow, it would only be able to “boil away†the oceans or “deep-fry†the planet immediately around the actual site of the eruption. Think about it. The volcanoes are too few, too small, and the volume of water, massively too great. Whatever steam was formed would be part of the cloud and ash cover (ASH CLOUDS) that would actually lower the temperature on the planet, not raise it. The sea life would probably welcome the comparatively small quantity of heat escaping from these oceanic vents. The steam that is formed would only result in the formation of more snow at the poles, allowing the gradual decrease in the volume of water that had been necessary to flood and destroy the original earth surface. This would be an effective way to lower the water depth so there would be land enough for animals and people to repopulate the world again. Maybe we don’t have to tilt the axis after all. :wink:

C. Fish and other sea life are not in a pot waiting to be boiled. They can move away from volcanic activity as soon as they hear the first rumblings. If there are a few that remain in the path of the lava flow or steam vent who get buried ( GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: FOSSILS) or cooked, oh well. There are plenty more fish in the sea. You actually only have to preserve a pair of every kind to start over. If some go extinct, the hole they leave in your ecosystem will quickly be filled by other organisms. In my world, the 70%+ water surface is not an oversized pot but as large as life, as deep as the deep blue sea and as wide as the ocean. Maybe you should expand your horizons and book one of these scuba diving tours where you explore the waters around volcanic vents and see the flourishing sea life. Your whole view of reality needs adjusting.

D. Plants were destroyed but the nice thing about plants is you have these things called seeds that can float and don’t mind being buried. Pieces of roots, branches and even twigs will survive a flood and those on top of the pile will take root and soon take over the rich flood soil so I wouldn’t worry about the plants if I were you. (If you want to worry about plants, try to imagine how and why plants came on the scene in your evolutionary dreams and how and why did they develop as food for the rest of creation in the first place.)
There is mention of taking some of all food that was eaten into the ark but I presumed it was to feed the zoo but with the cold temperatures, maybe most of the animals were hibernating. I picture Noah and his family tucked down between a few furries to keep warm and talking about the good old days…or rather, the wicked evil days.

E. You seem to want my theory to be flood event confined to a time frame of one year. I can see how that would be to your advantage. I have never claimed anything remotely so stupid. First of all, the Genesis flood was not the first massive flooding, only that it was the first (and greatest ever to be) flood that covered the entire world. Second, the year mentioned in the Bible is the time spent on the ark, while floating to avoid the horrific things that were happening in various places around the world. The causes and effects of the Genesis flood began a series of events that continue to this day which is a period of more than 4,000 years, which is ample time to build the topography we presently see on the surface of the earth. There is no need to try to squeeze out every mountain and valley and dry up every continent before Noah steps onto Mt Ararat. So the kind of ‘boil and fry’ nightmares you are having are just fabrications of your sorely uninformed, or outrageously misinformed, calamity fraught imagination.

F. I’m sorry if I have been blunt in refuting your claims here but your stubborn refusal to acknowledge any of my points or even correctly represent my theory has been mind boggling. You’re obviously a kind and caring, intelligent person but you do have very limited tunnel vision on this aspect of your thinking.

 

[Jimbob]

Your thinking is so flawed, irrelevant, and misrepresentative and your common sense is so lacking, I don’t know where to begin. Do you actually think for a moment that you could completely boil 2 inches of water covering the area of 28 football fields using even a thousand Dixie cups full of molten lava even if you dumped them all at once? While that may not be completely representative of the situation, it should certainly have helped you visualize the actual reality. Since you say most mountains are not volcanic in origin, most of the upheavals would not have generated that kind of heat at all, since they would not force lava to the surface if they merely pushed up mountains from under the surface. The heat that is generated by underwater eruptions ends up as steam and the lava cools rapidly when it hits the seawater. You should check out some volcano sites and read about them before you make your wild assertions. The damage of each would be very localized in comparison to the water volume.

And you're saying MY thinking is illogical?

I don't how how hard this is to make you understand: You are proposing condensing all of the geologic activity required to form the modern continents into the span of UNDER ONE YEAR. Do you have any idea how much energy that is? You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that all the heat will come from lava, when most of it will actually just be thermal energy release from the eruptions themselves. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes often have a higher yield than the most powerful nuclear bombs. To use your analogy, take that 2 - inch deep basin of water, and drop a bunch of lava scattered roughly evenly throughout it, while simultaneously setting off a few thousand firecrackers all over it and a few hundred hand grenades, and put a top on it so you can't allow any of the steam or explosive force to escape. Do you honestly think anything is going to survive that?

To give more perspective: You're familiar with the Richter scale, right? It states that an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 (about the same as the recent Indian Ocean quake) releases 32 GIGATONS of energy. In case you don't know how much that is, it's over 2 MILLION times the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb! In order for your model to work out, you would need millions of earthquakes of this magnitude occuring every day, all over the world! Not to mention even more powerful earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Face it: You can't release all that energy in such a short amount of time without killing everything alive on the entire planet.

You are obviously still tired and not thinking clearly. Your estimate of the surface of the world was off by a million square miles and yet you persist in your ‘Chicken Little of the sea’ cries bewailing the boiling waters under Noah’s ark and around the entire world. Get a grip, get a nap, get a clue.
You have glossed over my explanations of tsunamis, volcanic ash, and fossil evidence as if you hadn’t even read them. Let’s reason out few things here.

I was tired after a long day of work, and I made a simple miscalculation. I thought I explained this to you, but you insist in making ad hominems.

Yes, to destruction. No, to boiling and deep frying the entire planet. The Bible says there was worldwide destruction (CATASTROPHE) where all air breathing creatures died, except Noah and those in the ark. It was a catastrophic event that entailed flood waters covering the entire surface of the world to a depth of 15 cubits above the tallest mountains, (TSUNAMIS) the outpouring of rain from the windows of heaven, the breaking up of the great fountains of the deep releasing millions of tons of water (TSUNAMIS) washing mountains of earth into layered piles deposited on the higher ground (GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: LAYERS) and the death of all land dwellers and certainly some sea life as well. (GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: FOSSILS OF ALL KINDS IN WEIRD PLACES) It was a fairly complete destruction but there is no need to take it beyond the recorded history of events either.

And you're completely ignoring the point of how those tsunamis would easily capsize the ark. Also, fossils 'found in all kinds of weird places' are accounted for by plate tectonics, and in no way consistent with flood geology. Care to explain why all of them are sorted, not by size or mass, but by age? Why aren't the fossils of small dinosaurs found in the same strata as fossils of modern mammals?

Plants were destroyed but the nice thing about plants is you have these things called seeds that can float and don’t mind being buried. Pieces of roots, branches and even twigs will survive a flood and those on top of the pile will take root and soon take over the rich flood soil so I wouldn’t worry about the plants if I were you. (If you want to worry about plants, try to imagine how and why plants came on the scene in your evolutionary dreams and how and why did they develop as food for the rest of creation in the first place.)
There is mention of taking some of all food that was eaten into the ark but I presumed it was to feed the zoo but with the cold temperatures, maybe most of the animals were hibernating. I picture Noah and his family tucked down between a few furries to keep warm and talking about the good old days…or rather, the wicked evil days.

Plants evolved from multicellular algea colonies, but I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. The point is, the energy release would have killed all of the seeds that managed to somehow float to the surface.

You seem to want my theory to be flood event confined to a time frame of one year. I can see how that would be to your advantage. I have never claimed anything remotely so stupid. First of all, the Genesis flood was not the first massive flooding, only that it was the first (and greatest ever to be) flood that covered the entire world. Second, the year mentioned in the Bible is the time spent on the ark, while floating to avoid the horrific things that were happening in various places around the world. The causes and effects of the Genesis flood began a series of events that continue to this day which is a period of more than 4,000 years, which is ample time to build the topography we presently see on the surface of the earth. There is no need to try to squeeze out every mountain and valley and dry up every continent before Noah steps onto Mt Ararat. So the kind of ‘boil and fry’ nightmares you are having are just fabrications of your sorely uninformed, or outrageously misinformed, calamity fraught imagination.

Sorry, that's logically inconsistent with both evidence and your previous statements. All of this geologic activity could not have occured after the flood, because historical records confirm that no significant amount of mountain or continent formation occurred within the last 4000 years. It could not have occurred before the flood, because, according to your theory, the water was able to cover the entire world because all the land was much flatter then, and there were no mountains. So therefore, you are positing that it HAD to have happened during the duration described by the Noah story, which is impossible.

While volcanic lava would raise the temperatures immediately around the site of the flow, it would only be able to “boil away†the oceans or “deep-fry†the planet immediately around the actual site of the eruption. Think about it. The volcanoes are too few, too small, and the volume of water, massively too great. Whatever steam was formed would be part of the cloud and ash cover (ASH CLOUDS) that would actually lower the temperature on the planet, not raise it. The sea life would probably welcome the comparatively small quantity of heat escaping from these oceanic vents. The steam that is formed would only result in the formation of more snow at the poles, allowing the gradual decrease in the volume of water that had been necessary to flood and destroy the original earth surface. This would be an effective way to lower the water depth so there would be land enough for animals and people to repopulate the world again. Maybe we don’t have to tilt the axis after all. :wink:

Not even mentioning that most of the energy would not be released by the lava, this is still inconsistent with your theory, because you stated that this proposed rapid mountain formation was due, nearly exclusively, to volcanic and seismic activity, which would require far more volcanoes that are in existence today, on the order of hundreds of thousands, even millions, all over the world. And, as mentioned, that would release ash clouds miles thick that would block out the sun for decades, at least.

Fish and other sea life are not in a pot waiting to be boiled. They can move away from volcanic activity as soon as they hear the first rumblings. If there are a few that remain in the path of the lava flow or steam vent who get buried ( GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE: FOSSILS) or cooked, oh well. There are plenty more fish in the sea. You actually only have to preserve a pair of every kind to start over. If some go extinct, the hole they leave in your ecosystem will quickly be filled by other organisms. In my world, the 70%+ water surface is not an oversized pot but as large as life, as deep as the deep blue sea and as wide as the ocean. Maybe you should expand your horizons and book one of these scuba diving tours where you explore the waters around volcanic vents and see the flourishing sea life. Your whole view of reality needs adjusting

There are so many problems with this I can only begin to address them.

1. There would be no escape, since the amount and magnitude of volcanic eruptions you are positing would leave no safe place anywhere on Earth. Do you understand? It's not just an isolated eruption here or there, you are proposing a WORLDWIDE VOLANIC CATACLYSM.

2. Many animals, including sea animals, do not have the instincts to 'run away' after feeling just the slightest rumblings. So even if they could, most of them wouldn't.

3. There are not nearly enough fossilized remains in volcanic strata for this cataclysm you are proposing. The fossil record is sparse because fossilization is a rare event, it is not everywhere as your theory would predict. Not to mention that there isn't even geological evidence of such a mass catastrophe anywhere (I already explained the difference between extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks, so don't get into that again).

4. Two of every animal would not be nearly enough to repopulate the world in a timeframe of 4000 years, in fact, it would probably not even be enough to establish a stable population, due to lack of genetic diversity and the danger of imminent extinction with so few members of the species living.

5. Waxing poetic will not deny the facts here. It doesn't matter how large or populated a body of water is, release enough energy, and it will boil off. Sure, animals survive just fine near dormant volcanic vents, but they don't do so well if they suddenly erupt, do they? :o

I’m sorry if I have been blunt in refuting your claims here but your stubborn refusal to acknowledge any of my points or even correctly represent my theory has been mind boggling. You’re obviously a kind and caring, intelligent person but you do have very limited tunnel vision on this aspect of your thinking

You have not 'refuted' anything. You have just been repeating the same things over and over again and completely ignoring all the problems with them. Again, I ask you to read and answer this list of questions (which you have continually been dodging):http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

And you're saying MY thinking is illogical?

I don't how how hard this is to make you understand: You are proposing condensing all of the geologic activity required to form the modern continents into the span of UNDER ONE YEAR.

No, I’m not. You would like me to have to condense everything into this one year span and shoot it down with your pop gun. Wrong. All of these catastrophic events work in conjuncture with other events to raise and then lower the water level, from the volcanic action or asteroid strike or plate sifting that caused the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, to possible ash clouds from this possible volcanic action causing the maybe even thicker ozone layer to condense as rain and be deposited to form mountains, drowning the entire population in tsunami waves or swollen newly formed oceans that deposit layers of sediments on the highest point inland, or earthquakes opening rifts in the sea floor to allow the waters to drain to lower the level exposing more land, or maybe ice from a comet that could have had a cooling effect, or a tilt of the axis would lower temperatures, or even a volcanic ash cloud could have caused snowing at the poles that formed deeper glaciers, or any number of perfectly awesome geological events could have occurred that we have only fragmented clues left to tell us what really went on in the time of the flooding of the River Gihon, and during that momentous year of Noah’s flood and the following 4-5000 years following.

Jimbob wrote:

Do you have any idea how much energy that is? You also seem to be operating under the false assumption that all the heat will come from lava, when most of it will actually just be thermal energy release from the eruptions themselves. Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes often have a higher yield than the most powerful nuclear bombs. To use your analogy, take that 2 - inch deep basin of water, and drop a bunch of lava scattered roughly evenly throughout it, while simultaneously setting off a few thousand firecrackers all over it and a few hundred hand grenades, and put a top on it so you can't allow any of the steam or explosive force to escape. Do you honestly think anything is going to survive that?

To use my analogy??? There you go again, turning 28 football fields covered in 2 inches of water into a “basin of water†2 inches deep. How do you do that without even batting an eye? That is just a totally unfair and erroneous evaluation of what I said.

Jimbob wrote:

To give more perspective: You're familiar with the Richter scale, right? It states that an earthquake with a magnitude of 9.0 (about the same as the recent Indian Ocean quake) releases 32 GIGATONS of energy. In case you don't know how much that is, it's over 2 MILLION times the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb! In order for your model to work out, you would need millions of earthquakes of this magnitude occuring every day, all over the world! Not to mention even more powerful earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Face it: You can't release all that energy in such a short amount of time without killing everything alive on the entire planet.

Yes, face it. The Bible says the face of the earth was destroyed. Most of the events that must have taken place to accomplish that were not even recorded. Unscrambling all that unrecorded geologic history is like going to New Orleans and trying to rebuild all the houses using the same boards and plaster and bricks they were originally built with without the original plans. Ain’t gonna happen. You can only make assumptions and you only have partial remnants to go on. There are no pictures or plans or even very detailed descriptions of the original world or the floods and other events that destroyed it. All we have for evidence is the buried rubble of the remains.

Obviously it was a mess, obviously everything was destroyed except what God protected. God could have just set Noah and a few animals on a shelf until it was over but he chose to make an object lesson for us here. The moral of the story is pretty simple. Obey God and do what he commands and nobody gets hurt. Disobey and die.

Jimbob wrote:

I was tired after a long day of work, and I made a simple miscalculation. I thought I explained this to you, but you insist in making ad hominems.

Yes, you did explain. I had already made allowances for being human when I showed you your error the first time. I don’t know where you are getting ‘ad hominems†from. The thing is, even though you were corrected you persisted in the same tired line of thinking. And you still do. Changing a million square miles worth of water should have changed your thinking somewhat, but you just went on with the same line without blinking.



Jimbob wrote:

And you're completely ignoring the point of how those tsunamis would easily capsize the ark. Also, fossils 'found in all kinds of weird places' are accounted for by plate tectonics, and in no way consistent with flood geology. Care to explain why all of them are sorted, not by size or mass, but by age? Why aren't the fossils of small dinosaurs found in the same strata as fossils of modern mammals?

And you’re totally ignoring the fact that God is orchestrating the whole show here. I told you Noah was protected in the ark. Anything that God wanted saved, he saved. The animals that Noah had with him didn’t include fish and other creatures too numerous to count. God protected them. He’s God. He does miracles. You can’t stop him. Get over it.

Also, to change the subject back to the topic :wink: and answer your question, fossils are found in layers where they were buried. I explained this once to you. There were layers under Adam’s feet. There were animals and sea creatures that lived in the subterranean ‘fountains of the deep.’ The further down you went, the more simple and ‘primitive’ looking they were. They were created with Adam, possibly to work breaking down wastes and doing whatever part they had in the ecosystems there. Most of them are extinct now, having been buried, in the lowest sediment levels, either by Noah’s flood or in the previous flooding of Gihon River.


Jimbob wrote:

Plants evolved from multicellular algea colonies, but I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. The point is, the energy release would have killed all of the seeds that managed to somehow float to the surface.

You’re forgetting that God knows what he’s doing. He can save plants without Noah. As I said, he didn’t even need Noah’s boat to save Noah. It was an object lesson for us. Would Noah have been saved if he didn’t build the ark? Probably not. He probably would have died for his disobedience and we wouldn‘t be here discussing it.


Jimbob wrote:

Sorry, that's logically inconsistent with both evidence and your previous statements. All of this geologic activity could not have occured after the flood, because historical records confirm that no significant amount of mountain or continent formation occurred within the last 4000 years. It could not have occurred before the flood, because, according to your theory, the water was able to cover the entire world because all the land was much flatter then, and there were no mountains. So therefore, you are positing that it HAD to have happened during the duration described by the Noah story, which is impossible.

You’re just an ‘either/or’ kind of guy, aren’t you? When you say, “All of this geologic activity could not have occurred after the flood,†you aren’t even representing what I said correctly. I said it occurred before, during and after the flood even up to the present age when islands are still being formed today without your knowledge or consent.


Jimbob wrote:

Not even mentioning that most of the energy would not be released by the lava, this is still inconsistent with your theory, because you stated that this proposed rapid mountain formation was due, nearly exclusively, to volcanic and seismic activity, which would require far more volcanoes that are in existence today, on the order of hundreds of thousands, even millions, all over the world. And, as mentioned, that would release ash clouds miles thick that would block out the sun for decades, at least.

My theory is expandable to fit the facts. Change the facts, I’ll just stretch my theory to include them. It doesn’t matter. God knows how to build ash cloud cover and he knows how to eliminate it in two shakes of a comet‘s tail. Face it, Jimbob, your world is too small and your god is a whimp. Your theory sucks big time though. :wink:


Jimbob wrote:

There are so many problems with this I can only begin to address them.

Then, really, why bother? You seem to like your theory just fine and you can keep it. God gave you the freedom to think what you wish. Exercise your rights. Hardly anyone will ridicule you for believing what the majority believes. I don’t even think God is laughing.

Jimbob wrote:

1. There would be no escape, since the amount and magnitude of volcanic eruptions you are positing would leave no safe place anywhere on Earth. Do you understand? It's not just an isolated eruption here or there, you are proposing a WORLDWIDE VOLANIC CATACLYSM.

You mean like the flood described in Genesis 7:23 perhaps? Do you understand that God is God? He is God or he wouldn’t be God, right? God made the animals, he made the seeds, he made the rules and he knows how to coordinate everything to work out the perfect scenario to accomplish his purposes. We may not understand it or even like it but we’re not God, he is.

Jimbob wrote:

2. Many animals, including sea animals, do not have the instincts to 'run away' after feeling just the slightest rumblings. So even if they could, most of them wouldn't.

So there would be more stupid fish fossils than land creatures? Wasn’t that one of your other objections?

Jimbob wrote:

3. There are not nearly enough fossilized remains in volcanic strata for this cataclysm you are proposing. The fossil record is sparse because fossilization is a rare event, it is not everywhere as your theory would predict. Not to mention that there isn't even geological evidence of such a mass catastrophe anywhere (I already explained the difference between extrusive and intrusive igneous rocks, so don't get into that again).

What you need is a good map of the real world showing the major volcanic mountains and read up on the ash cover they did emit.

Jimbob wrote:

4. Two of every animal would not be nearly enough to repopulate the world in a timeframe of 4000 years, in fact, it would probably not even be enough to establish a stable population, due to lack of genetic diversity and the danger of imminent extinction with so few members of the species living.

Would you like another math lesson? Did you ever hear the little example of working for a penny and doubling that amount every day? By the time 30 days is up, it’s somewhere over a million. The “lack of genetic diversity†is where we are at 4000 years later. Back then, fewer kinds, more possibilities.

Jimbob wrote:

5. Waxing poetic will not deny the facts here. It doesn't matter how large or populated a body of water is, release enough energy, and it will boil off. Sure, animals survive just fine near dormant volcanic vents, but they don't do so well if they suddenly erupt, do they? 8oI

Like I said, the few close to the vent may cook, but there are more fish in the sea. We only need a couple generic ones of each kind to survive, after all. We can evolve them into something prettier down the road, when God is in a better mood.


Jimbob wrote:

You have not 'refuted' anything. You have just been repeating the same things over and over again and completely ignoring all the problems with them. Again, I ask you to read and answer this list of questions (which you have continually been dodging):http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Well, obviously, one man’s irrefutable substantiation is another man’s penny-ante nanny nanny foo foo. I think I’m down to repeating myself and we hate that. I read your site and answered all the questions but it was an oral test and unless you can make it multiple choice, I’m not typing it up as an essay. Besides, since it’s a test, you’ll have to get your own answers. :wink:

 

[spreadingtheword]

It seems that these evolutionists don't even know how to debate. They just attack and attack with rhetoric. How about LISTENING for a change, how about opening your minds for a moment or two. I don't even bother to read what they write if it's more then 2 or 3 lines because I know what its going to say anyways. So why waste my time. I think some of these evoluionists are just such miserable and hate filled people it clouds thier vision and judgement. But what can you expect from someone who believes they come from pond scum :angel:

 

[Quath]

It seems that these evolutionists don't even know how to debate. They just attack and attack with rhetoric. How about LISTENING for a change, how about opening your minds for a moment or two. I don't even bother to read what they write if it's more then 2 or 3 lines because I know what its going to say anyways. So why waste my time. I think some of these evoluionists are just such miserable and hate filled people it clouds thier vision and judgement. But what can you expect from someone who believes they come from pond scum :angel:

So you think that Evolutionists should listen but not Creationists? You are basically proposing hypocracy.

Quath

 

[unred typo]

spreadingtheword:

I don't even bother to read what they write if it's more then 2 or 3 lines because I know what its going to say anyways. So why waste my time. I think some of these evoluionists are just such miserable and hate filled people it clouds thier vision and judgement. But what can you expect from someone who believes they come from pond scum

Hate is a stick and feeling the pain depends on which end you’re at.
Sometimes it is so frustrating talking to someone with a different POV that we may forget that we probably seem as hard headed in their eyes. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and for them, it‘s the one that really counts. No matter what we may think happened in the beginning, God ‘don’t like ugly’ and I don’t think he evaluates us on what we think of evolution or creationism but how we treat each other. Pond scum or dust, none of us has too much to be proud of if we don’t show love one to another.

 

[reznwerks]

method

It seems that these evolutionists don't even know how to debate. They just attack and attack with rhetoric. How about LISTENING for a change, how about opening your minds for a moment or two. I don't even bother to read what they write if it's more then 2 or 3 lines because I know what its going to say anyways. So why waste my time. I think some of these evoluionists are just such miserable and hate filled people it clouds thier vision and judgement. But what can you expect from someone who believes they come from pond scum :angel:

==============
Perhaps you said it all when you admitted you do not read beyond the first few lines of any post. It can also be assumed you do not read beyond the first few lines of any evidence presented. Perhaps this is why you are where you are. Anyway this is the difference between science and religion in the way it relates to creationism. The following is whats called the scientific method. This is how science goes about finding an answer to something. IF you've read this so far you will see that what is different is that creationists already have the answer and are still looking for the evidence . When you complain about lack of evidence on the evolutionists side remember you have none. Your own bible tells you as much when it says "faith is the evidence of things not seen". Basically it admits it has no REAL evidence.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

[unred typo]

Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena

Reznwerks wrote:

Your own bible tells you as much when it says "faith is the evidence of things not seen". Basically it admits it has no REAL evidence.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Not exactly, Rez. There is plenty of evidence to be seen. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Every person has a certain amount of internal faith, enough to believe if they so choose. This faith is the evidence of what is unseen of God. You would call it ‘instinct’ and dismiss it as a natural result of chemical reactions or something with a more scientific ring to the words.

1.
Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

There is a phenomena observed among humans called veneration of a superior being (or cause) that initiates the formulation of various religious practices. This is observed in every level of society from the very primitive to the most sophisticated.

2.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
Existence of a superior being that somehow originated this response in our subconscious or within the building blocks of genetic code we were constructed with.

3.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

When not raised with the knowledge of the identity of this actual creative force, a human will seek to find it’s creator and be drawn to various methods of communication with this superior being. If unsatisfied with the results of this search or with conflicts of other basic needs of the individual, humans will seek to find relief from this passion to exalt their creator by worshipping lesser sources of higher intelligence or give allegiance to powers that deny the existence of this basic need and the source of it.

4.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Removal of this recognition of a supreme source of creative genius from the subject’s life creates overwhelming desire to either find a suitable substitute or to entirely deny the existence of the superior being. Failure to accomplish one of both of these directives may result in despondency, sleeplessness, self destructive behaviors or even death.

 

[army_of_juan]

Re: Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena

4.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Removal of this recognition of a supreme source of creative genius from the subject’s life creates overwhelming desire to either find a suitable substitute or to entirely deny the existence of the superior being. Failure to accomplish one of both of these directives may result in despondency, sleeplessness, self destructive behaviors or even death.

Do you have a link to where this has been done? I can think of a few other reasons for such effects and I am wondering if any of them was addressed.

I must say that was well written though I'm sure there are many different explanations that could be drawn from it. This got me thing of this: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

 

[unred typo]

army_of_juan wrote:

Do you have a link to where this has been done? I can think of a few other reasons for such effects and I am wondering if any of them was addressed.

You know what? Removal of God from a person’s life has got to be on a strictly volunteer basis and being a subject of study might severely warp the results. LOL. One would have to slip around bars, casinos, night clubs and back alleys with a hidden clipboard like a Jane Goodall of suburbia. I think you could find enough real life examples of such behavior among friends and acquaintances if yours are anything like mine.

army_of_juan wrote:

I must say that was well written though I'm sure there are many different explanations that could be drawn from it. This got me thing of this: http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html

Thank you kindly, sir. Your link was interesting but I would site it as just another example of the kind of behavior outlined in #3 (suitable substitute) of my hypothesis above.

 

[army_of_juan]

army_of_juan wrote:

Do you have a link to where this has been done? I can think of a few other reasons for such effects and I am wondering if any of them was addressed.

You know what? Removal of God from a person’s life has got to be on a strictly volunteer basis and being a subject of study might severely warp the results. LOL. One would have to slip around bars, casinos, night clubs and back alleys with a hidden clipboard like a Jane Goodall of suburbia. I think you could find enough real life examples of such behavior among friends and acquaintances if yours are anything like mine.

I used to be a Baptist for around 20 years and after a long period of questioning I'm no longer a believer thus you could say I sort of apply to the above. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, my life hasn't really changed.

 

[unred typo]

I used to be a Baptist for around 20 years and after a long period of questioning I'm no longer a believer thus you could say I sort of apply to the above. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, my life hasn't really changed.

Me too, except now I’m not an unbeliever, just an unBaptist. See #4 of my hypothesis. Then ask, “Why am I here? (on this forum) Who needs this abuse?†(self destructive denial tendencies)

 

[army_of_juan]

[quote="army_of_juan":3d967]

I used to be a Baptist for around 20 years and after a long period of questioning I'm no longer a believer thus you could say I sort of apply to the above. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, my life hasn't really changed.

Me too, except now I’m not an unbeliever, just an unBaptist. See #4 of my hypothesis. Then ask, “Why am I here? (on this forum) Who needs this abuse?†(self destructive denial tendencies)[/quote:3d967]
Who says there has to be a "why"? I'm here because my parents gave birth to me so I guess the why is because they wanted children. Also, I don't see life as abusive, I have a good life and I've been very lucky so far (maybe God likes atheist LOL).

 

[unred typo]

army_of_juan wrote:

Who says there has to be a "why"? I'm here because my parents gave birth to me so I guess the why is because they wanted children. Also, I don't see life as abusive, I have a good life and I've been very lucky so far (maybe God likes atheist LOL).

Sorry. My original post was unclear. (pre-coffee musings) I changed it just after you read it I guess. I should have waited to see if was already misread before logging out. Changes in parenthesis, btw.

I meant, why are you here on this forum, trying to disprove God? Why make the effort to wade through these conflicting, thought frustrating provocations to undisturbed ‘karma?’ Is it that you instinctively know that your ease of life is like the man who jumped from the top of the Empire State building and was asked by the man on the 22d floor how he was doing, and answered, “Great…this is a breeze!� Is it that you seek to dispel fears that there really is a God? Are you looking for sources of higher intelligence that deny the existence of this basic need and the source of it? Pay no attention to that clipboard behind my back…. :wink:

I think God loves atheists if they are honest ones. He’s just PO’d that you give all the credit of his hard work week to the creation itself who couldn’t pull it off in a billion gazillion years, if their life depended on it.

 

[army_of_juan]

army_of_juan wrote:

Who says there has to be a "why"? I'm here because my parents gave birth to me so I guess the why is because they wanted children. Also, I don't see life as abusive, I have a good life and I've been very lucky so far (maybe God likes atheist LOL).

Sorry. My original post was unclear. (pre-coffee musings) I changed it just after you read it I guess. I should have waited to see if was already misread before logging out. Changes in parenthesis, btw.

I meant, why are you here on this forum, trying to disprove God? Why make the effort to wade through these conflicting, thought frustrating provocations to undisturbed ‘karma?’ Is it that you instinctively know that your ease of life is like the man who jumped from the top of the Empire State building and was asked by the man on the 22d floor how he was doing, and answered, “Great…this is a breeze!� Is it that you seek to dispel fears that there really is a God? Are you looking for sources of higher intelligence that deny the existence of this basic need and the source of it? Pay no attention to that clipboard behind my back…. :wink:

I think God loves atheists if they are honest ones. He’s just PO’d that you give all the credit of his hard work week to the creation itself who couldn’t pull it off in a billion gazillion years, if their life depended on it.

Sorry, I didn't re-read your OP.

I am not here to disprove God nor am I interested in debating about it. God could exist right along with evolution. I'm here to help clear up misconceptions about evolution because I just find it amazing that there are people out there that actually believe evolution isn't real. I have nothing against religion and believe overall it's more helpful to society than detrimental.

And one last thing, I credit myself for making good decisions, not any outside forces.

 

[Solo]

[quote="unred typo":097bd]army_of_juan wrote:

Do you have a link to where this has been done? I can think of a few other reasons for such effects and I am wondering if any of them was addressed.

You know what? Removal of God from a person’s life has got to be on a strictly volunteer basis and being a subject of study might severely warp the results. LOL. One would have to slip around bars, casinos, night clubs and back alleys with a hidden clipboard like a Jane Goodall of suburbia. I think you could find enough real life examples of such behavior among friends and acquaintances if yours are anything like mine.

I used to be a Baptist for around 20 years and after a long period of questioning I'm no longer a believer thus you could say I sort of apply to the above. Other than sleeping in on Sundays, my life hasn't really changed.[/quote:097bd]
When you were a Baptist, how old were you when you were baptized?