Page 2 of 4
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:24 pm
by ROBE
Either there was a global flood or the Almight just wanted Noah to improve his carpentry skills.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:36 pm
by RickD
ROBE wrote:Either there was a global flood or the Almight just wanted Noah to improve his carpentry skills.
ROBE, Yor profile says "DayAge/Progressive Creationist". I've yet to meet a progressive/old earth creationist, who believes in a global Noahic flood. I guess I learn something new, each day.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:20 am
by ROBE
I find Answers in Genesis tends to cling on to tradition too much when it comes to Genesis while this site throws the baby out with the bath water.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:19 am
by RickD
ROBE wrote:I find Answers in Genesis tends to cling on to tradition too much when it comes to Genesis while this site throws the baby out with the bath water.
How so?
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:42 am
by ROBE
Well Answers in Genesis often does a great job in giving evolution a great kicking.
However they then get silly by stating the Earth was made before the Sun etc.
They also get bogged down with trying to prove nothing died etc.
Christians in the past did not understand Earth based observation point.
Now while this site has sat down and said what does Genesis actually say and moved on it has thrown gobal flood out with the bad ideas.
I have no problem with a global flood it's not the end of the world, oh wait it was.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:11 pm
by RickD
I have no problem with a global flood it's not the end of the world, oh wait it was.
Oh, ok. I see what you're saying. I wouldn't have any problem believing in a global flood, if that's where I felt the evidence pointed. It really isn't an essential, as far as I'm concerned.
Just read over this, if you haven't already:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:55 pm
by sandy_mcd
ROBE wrote:I once asked a man with a scientific education how they dated rocks, he said from the fossils. He then admitted they dated fossils from the age of the fossils. He admitted he had problems with this to his teacher who told him to accept this is how it was done.
You can Google "how do they date rocks" and come up with a better answer than that. If you don't care how they date rocks and aren't interested in researching the matter, that's one thing. But to write the above misrepresents science and scientists.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:23 am
by ROBE
Your talking to somebody who believes Alpha and Omega created the Universe billions of years ago.
I believe animals were created over 6 thousand years ago.
What I don't believe in is trying to match the Genesis account to an evolution time table.
If you checked yourself different dating methods give different results and are then amended to fit theories.
At the end of the day humans are bias or make mistakes so arguing over specific dates are pointless unless it is say the date of Jesus' birth.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:45 pm
by Murray
My question to a YEC is "how come we have found dinosaur fossils but no human fossils?"
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:07 am
by jlay
Murray,
There are a lot of fossils we don't find. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
sandy_mcd wrote:You can Google "how do they date rocks" and come up with a better answer than that. If you don't care how they date rocks and aren't interested in researching the matter, that's one thing. But to write the above misrepresents science and scientists.
-Radioactive elements were incorporated into the Earth when the Solar System formed. (Speculation. Not testable or observable.)
-Radioactive elements are unstable; they breakdown spontaneously into more stable atoms over time, a process known as radioactive decay. (testable and observable, no problem)
-Radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate, specific to each radioactive isotope. (Presumes uniformitarianism. What's happening now, is what has always happened. Presumption)
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dati ... inaccurate
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:16 pm
by Murray
Another question, How do minerals such as marble, DIAMONDS, Oil, limestone, and sandstone form in a such a short period of time? From my understanding it takes millions of years of constant compression to form some of them.
And another, when we witness a supernova, we assume the light from that explosion takes million of light years to reach us (as the galaxies themselves are millions of light years away). With the universe being 10k years old how can the witnessing of a supernova be explained?
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:21 pm
by jlay
Another question, How do minerals such as marble, DIAMONDS, Oil, limestone, and sandstone form in a such a short period of time? From my understanding it takes millions of years of constant compression to form some of them.
Synthetic stones are formed in a matter of months or weeks. In fact I used to work with a synthetic (hydrothermal) emerald that was so close that it fooled a certified (GIA) gemologist.
Your statements presuppose uniformitarianism.
And another, when we witness a supernova, we assume the light from that explosion takes million of light years to reach us (as the galaxies themselves are millions of light years away). With the universe being 10k years old how can the witnessing of a supernova be explained?
You said it. We assume. Last I checked the universe is expanding. So, the supernova is enclosed in an expanding universe. Has the universe always expanded at the same rate? I don't know.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 1:23 pm
by RickD
Murray wrote:Another question, How do minerals such as marble, DIAMONDS, Oil, limestone, and sandstone form in a such a short period of time? From my understanding it takes millions of years of constant compression to form some of them.
And another, when we witness a supernova, we assume the light from that explosion takes million of light years to reach us (as the galaxies themselves are millions of light years away). With the universe being 10k years old how can the witnessing of a supernova be explained?
Murray, I assume you're looking for an answer, from Young Earth point of view. Here's a link to Answers in Genesis, that may help you see it from a young earth perspective:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... nova-1987a
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:06 pm
by sandy_mcd
jlay wrote:Another question, How do minerals such as marble, DIAMONDS, Oil, limestone, and sandstone form in a such a short period of time? From my understanding it takes millions of years of constant compression to form some of them.
Synthetic stones are formed in a matter of months or weeks. In fact I used to work with a synthetic (hydrothermal) emerald that was so close that it fooled a certified (GIA) gemologist.
How long it takes minerals/rocks to form is a very interesting question. I have no idea but I suspect many if not most do require millions of years. Synthetic minerals such as emeralds, rubies, diamonds, and sapphires can indeed be grown in the laboratory quickly. Laboratories can produce heat and pressure readily. On the other hand, natural rocks will take much longer. Consider sandstone:
http://geology.about.com/od/more_sedrocks/a/aboutsandstone.htm wrote:Sandstone forms where sand is laid down and buried. Usually this happens offshore from river deltas, but desert dunes and beaches can leave sandstone beds in the geologic record too. The famous red rocks of the Grand Canyon, for instance, formed in a desert setting. ...
When sand is deeply buried, the pressure of burial and slightly higher temperatures allow minerals to dissolve or deform and become mobile. The grains become more tightly knit together, and the sediments are squeezed into a smaller volume. This is the time when cementing material moves into the sediment, carried there by fluids charged with dissolved minerals. Oxidizing conditions lead to red colors from iron oxides, while reducing conditions lead to darker and grayer colors.
First we need sand. Sand comes from the weathering of rocks. How long does that take? Then after accumulation, the sand needs to be buried, pressurised and heated. Again, this is easy to do in the lab but takes considerably longer in nature.
Re: This looks interesting and seems to support a global flo
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:38 am
by jlay
Sand comes from the weathering of rocks. How long does that take?
Are you asking me, or saying you don't know?
I'd say it depends. Is there only one way that sand is formed? Are the conditions on earth today reflective of how they've always been? There are many catostrophic events that could cause rapid formation of sand to be deposited. Meteor impact being one. More active tectonic activity is another.
If we look at sandstone deposits they are global and massive.