This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Elessar · 26-30, M
It's like 25 years I visit the Alps and I can assure you I've never seen any marine life fossil. How strange. Similarly, not even Sumerians who were writing down tablets when said flood should've happened according to the Bible's timeline, seemed to notice anything.
That book is as much scientifically accurate as the Lord of the Rings is. Was Tolkien born over 2000 years ago we'd be worshipping Gandalf now, probably
That book is as much scientifically accurate as the Lord of the Rings is. Was Tolkien born over 2000 years ago we'd be worshipping Gandalf now, probably
1-25 of 32
Carazaa · F
@Elessar There are fossils in the Alps. I've skid the Alps, and visit in the summer. Because of Noahs flood there are fossils everywhere, read this article about fossils in the Alps.
[quote]Fossil discoveries in the Austrian Alps, they claim, offer evidence that some deep sea creatures actually evolved in the deep sea and are the ancestors of many modern deep sea creatures. For most of modern science, ocean scientists have believed that the open ocean is a near desert, with few living creatures in it.
Fossil discovery in Alps challenges theory that all deep ...[/quote]
phys.org/news/2014-05-fossil-discovery-alps-theory-deep.html
phys.org/news/2014-05-fossil-discovery-alps-theory-deep.html
[quote]Fossil discoveries in the Austrian Alps, they claim, offer evidence that some deep sea creatures actually evolved in the deep sea and are the ancestors of many modern deep sea creatures. For most of modern science, ocean scientists have believed that the open ocean is a near desert, with few living creatures in it.
Fossil discovery in Alps challenges theory that all deep ...[/quote]
phys.org/news/2014-05-fossil-discovery-alps-theory-deep.html
phys.org/news/2014-05-fossil-discovery-alps-theory-deep.html
@Carazaa
I know you believe the flood actually happened but this is NOT evidence of it.
1) I [i]personally [/i]have explained to you how mountains form and how ancient sea beds become thrust up into mountain ranges as continents shift and collide.
Here's a little 3 minute refresher.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd_XqYE2BWY]
2) The fact that these mountain fossil beds are stratified is evidence [i]against[/i] a global flood killing everything over a relatively short period of time.
The reason for that is an obvious one which you have yet to explain (because yes, you've run up against this problem before and been unable to solve it). If the flood covered up the mountains and left dead animals up there then we would see these fossil beds full of sea shells [i]also [/i] containing the land animals: mice, squirrels, goats, bears etc that died on that mountain when the water rose.
But that's not what the fossil record shows.
If you want to make your case for the Noachian flood then find [i]good[/i] evidence because this is not it.
Once again you are in the position of denying the an entire fields of science.
Unless you'd like to point me to a reputable geologist who has other models on how mountains form.
I know you believe the flood actually happened but this is NOT evidence of it.
1) I [i]personally [/i]have explained to you how mountains form and how ancient sea beds become thrust up into mountain ranges as continents shift and collide.
Here's a little 3 minute refresher.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd_XqYE2BWY]
2) The fact that these mountain fossil beds are stratified is evidence [i]against[/i] a global flood killing everything over a relatively short period of time.
The reason for that is an obvious one which you have yet to explain (because yes, you've run up against this problem before and been unable to solve it). If the flood covered up the mountains and left dead animals up there then we would see these fossil beds full of sea shells [i]also [/i] containing the land animals: mice, squirrels, goats, bears etc that died on that mountain when the water rose.
But that's not what the fossil record shows.
If you want to make your case for the Noachian flood then find [i]good[/i] evidence because this is not it.
Once again you are in the position of denying the an entire fields of science.
Unless you'd like to point me to a reputable geologist who has other models on how mountains form.
Carazaa · F
@Pikachu
Here is your evidence how mountains were made.
[quote][b]The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1[/b][/quote]
Here is your evidence how mountains were made.
[quote][b]The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:1[/b][/quote]
@Carazaa
[quote]Here is your evidence how mountains were made.[/quote]
So to be clear, can you state for the record that you deny the scientific, geological understanding of how mountains form.
Unless you were just being flippant having been backed into a corner.
And yet again, as @Elessar as pointed out, you have posted a source which disputes rather than supports your position on mountain formation, age of the earth and fossil deposition.
[quote]Here is your evidence how mountains were made.[/quote]
So to be clear, can you state for the record that you deny the scientific, geological understanding of how mountains form.
Unless you were just being flippant having been backed into a corner.
And yet again, as @Elessar as pointed out, you have posted a source which disputes rather than supports your position on mountain formation, age of the earth and fossil deposition.
@Carazaa
You mentioned not letting your biases blind you but how many fields of science are you forced to deny in order to confirm your bias?
Geology
Paleontology
Archaeology
Physics
Taphonomy
Phylogeny
Genetics
Dendrology
Phrenology
Did i miss any?
You have faith in your beliefs and that's no better than it should be but i think it's time to stop pretending there is any [i]scientific [/i]support for those beliefs.
Even the sources you employ in an attempt to bolster your claims regularly refute them because you don't look past the first google hits and the title.
Something to think about.
You mentioned not letting your biases blind you but how many fields of science are you forced to deny in order to confirm your bias?
Geology
Paleontology
Archaeology
Physics
Taphonomy
Phylogeny
Genetics
Dendrology
Phrenology
Did i miss any?
You have faith in your beliefs and that's no better than it should be but i think it's time to stop pretending there is any [i]scientific [/i]support for those beliefs.
Even the sources you employ in an attempt to bolster your claims regularly refute them because you don't look past the first google hits and the title.
Something to think about.
Carazaa · F
@Pikachu I am not denying their findings just their conclusions! There are many scientists who agree with the global flood, some are young earth believers and some old earth. It is about [i]interpreting[/i] data. But the earth can not be millions of years old. Dr. Georgia explained this in the video last year. Funding research projects are influencing some researchers interpretation like I have shared before. Ill copy all the reasons why the earth must be young not old. Why did dinos die? The article yesterday that I sent you explained it. Here is another one.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Carazaa You can cherry pick as much as you want, the consensus is that the Earth age is well beyond millions (actually billions) years old; that the planet is round and not flat, and that it rotates around the sun and not the other way around. All the rest is religious anti-scientific nonsense.
Carazaa · F
@Elessar
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
Featured in Answers Magazine
The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe.
Despite this wealth of evidence, it is important to understand that, from the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young (or old) the universe is. Only one dating method is absolutely reliable—a witness who doesn’t lie, who has all evidence, and who can reveal to us when the universe began!
And we do have such a witness—the God of the Bible! He has given us a specific history, beginning with the six days of Creation and followed by detailed genealogies that allow us to determine when the universe began. Based on this history, the beginning was only about six thousand years ago (about four thousand years from Creation to Christ).
In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific “evidences,” it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?
The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called “evidences” must be interpreted. Facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.
Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
When discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points. The Bible is the right starting point.
That’s why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.
The Bible is that starting point. This is the revealed Word of the almighty, faithful, and true Creator, who was present to observe all events of earth history and who gave mankind an infallible record of key events in the past.
Abeka Book Master Books Cedarville University
The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13).
In one sense, God’s testimony is all we need; but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). So it is also important to conduct scientific research (that is part of taking dominion of the earth, as Adam was told to do in Genesis 1:28). With this research we can challenge those who reject God’s clear Word and defend the biblical worldview.
Indeed, God’s testimony must have such a central role in our thinking that it seems demeaning even to call it the “best” evidence of a young earth. It is, in truth, the only foundation upon which all other evidences can be correctly understood!
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
For Additional Information:
The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)
#2 Bent Rock Layers
For Additional Information:
Folded Rock Layers
“Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
“Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
For Additional Information:
Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
For Additional Information:
The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
For Additional Information:
The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
“The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
For Additional Information:
Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
“Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
For Additional Information:
Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
“The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
“Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)
#8 Short-Lived Comets
For Additional Information:
Comets and the Age of the Solar System
Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
For Additional Information:
The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
For Additional Information:
Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt
View an excerpt from the DVD Nuclear Strength Apologetics, which shows how to use scientific evidence properly when you defend your faith.
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
Featured in Answers Magazine
The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find—in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy.
Literally hundreds of dating methods could be used to attempt an estimate of the earth’s age, and the vast majority of them point to a much younger earth than the 4.5 billion years claimed by secularists. The following series of articles presents what Answers in Genesis researchers picked as the ten best scientific evidences that contradict billions of years and confirm a relatively young earth and universe.
Despite this wealth of evidence, it is important to understand that, from the perspective of observational science, no one can prove absolutely how young (or old) the universe is. Only one dating method is absolutely reliable—a witness who doesn’t lie, who has all evidence, and who can reveal to us when the universe began!
And we do have such a witness—the God of the Bible! He has given us a specific history, beginning with the six days of Creation and followed by detailed genealogies that allow us to determine when the universe began. Based on this history, the beginning was only about six thousand years ago (about four thousand years from Creation to Christ).
In the rush to examine all these amazing scientific “evidences,” it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. Such a mountain of scientific evidence, accumulated by researchers, seems to obviously contradict the supposed billions of years, so why don’t more people rush to accept the truth of a young earth based on the Bible?
The problem is, as we consider the topic of origins, all so-called “evidences” must be interpreted. Facts don’t speak for themselves. Interpreting the facts of the present becomes especially difficult when reconstructing the historical events that produced those present-day facts, because no humans have always been present to observe all the evidence and to record how all the evidence was produced.
Forensic scientists must make multiple assumptions about things they cannot observe. How was the original setting different? Were different processes in play? Was the scene later contaminated? Just one wrong assumption or one tiny piece of missing evidence could totally change how they reconstruct the past events that led to the present-day evidence.
When discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points. The Bible is the right starting point.
That’s why, when discussing the age of the earth, Christians must be ready to explain the importance of starting points and assumptions. Reaching the correct conclusions requires the right starting point.
The Bible is that starting point. This is the revealed Word of the almighty, faithful, and true Creator, who was present to observe all events of earth history and who gave mankind an infallible record of key events in the past.
Abeka Book Master Books Cedarville University
The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13).
In one sense, God’s testimony is all we need; but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). So it is also important to conduct scientific research (that is part of taking dominion of the earth, as Adam was told to do in Genesis 1:28). With this research we can challenge those who reject God’s clear Word and defend the biblical worldview.
Indeed, God’s testimony must have such a central role in our thinking that it seems demeaning even to call it the “best” evidence of a young earth. It is, in truth, the only foundation upon which all other evidences can be correctly understood!
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor
For Additional Information:
The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)
#2 Bent Rock Layers
For Additional Information:
Folded Rock Layers
“Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
“Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)
#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
For Additional Information:
Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils
#4 Faint Sun Paradox
For Additional Information:
The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System
#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field
For Additional Information:
The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
“The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)
#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks
For Additional Information:
Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
“Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)
#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds
For Additional Information:
Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
“The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
“Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)
#8 Short-Lived Comets
For Additional Information:
Comets and the Age of the Solar System
Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’
#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea
For Additional Information:
The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
“Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)
#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria
For Additional Information:
Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt
View an excerpt from the DVD Nuclear Strength Apologetics, which shows how to use scientific evidence properly when you defend your faith.
@Carazaa
[quote]I am not denying their findings just their conclusions! [/quote]
lol and what's the practical difference between those two things?
[quote]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
[/quote]
Read
Your
Articles.
This is yet another articles that suggests a [i]local[/i] flood and an old earth timeline [i]and it doesn't mention dinosaurs.[/i]
[quote]some are young earth believers and some old earth[/quote]
Find me an old earth geologist who thinks there was a global flood. Tell me their names.
lol Dr. Georgia the [i]geneticist [/i]explained why Geologists are wrong? Do you see a problem with that?
You claim an expertise in a specific field, do you feel that gives you expertise on neurology? No, indeed.
P.S. i can see that you're not even familiar with the fields of science i mentioned because one of them was a trick😉
[quote]I am not denying their findings just their conclusions! [/quote]
lol and what's the practical difference between those two things?
[quote]https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/evidence-for-a-flood-102813115/
[/quote]
Read
Your
Articles.
This is yet another articles that suggests a [i]local[/i] flood and an old earth timeline [i]and it doesn't mention dinosaurs.[/i]
[quote]some are young earth believers and some old earth[/quote]
Find me an old earth geologist who thinks there was a global flood. Tell me their names.
lol Dr. Georgia the [i]geneticist [/i]explained why Geologists are wrong? Do you see a problem with that?
You claim an expertise in a specific field, do you feel that gives you expertise on neurology? No, indeed.
P.S. i can see that you're not even familiar with the fields of science i mentioned because one of them was a trick😉
Elessar · 26-30, M
@Carazaa Yeah, none of those prove anything, they're at best guessed implications.
In any case "5000 years old Earth" is not really a debated/open question.
- [u]https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/190/1/205[/u]
- [u]https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0012-821X%2880%2990024-2[/u]
[u]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/[/u]
In any case "5000 years old Earth" is not really a debated/open question.
- [u]https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/190/1/205[/u]
- [u]https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0012-821X%2880%2990024-2[/u]
[u]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/[/u]
@Carazaa
Maybe I can better make my point if we move away from such a charged subject.
When it comes to COVID do you accept the findings and conclusions of the global scientific community or do you embrace the fractional minority who say it's just a flu and no big deal?
When considering the state of climate change do you trust the massive majority of climate scientists who tell you it's a big problem or do you feel the fringe position that it's not a problem is more believable?
When you seek medical treatment for various illness do you think the doctors who tell you that germs and viruses are causing disease are right or do you put your money on the people telling you it's actually bad energetic vibrations and 5G networks?
[i]In what other areas do you endorse ignoring the scientific consensus in favour of the (often unqualified) minority?[/i]
I am actually interested in a direct answer to this, Carazaa. Is your denial of mainstream science consistent and logical or is it only in areas where it conflicts with a position you hold too dear to yield?
Maybe I can better make my point if we move away from such a charged subject.
When it comes to COVID do you accept the findings and conclusions of the global scientific community or do you embrace the fractional minority who say it's just a flu and no big deal?
When considering the state of climate change do you trust the massive majority of climate scientists who tell you it's a big problem or do you feel the fringe position that it's not a problem is more believable?
When you seek medical treatment for various illness do you think the doctors who tell you that germs and viruses are causing disease are right or do you put your money on the people telling you it's actually bad energetic vibrations and 5G networks?
[i]In what other areas do you endorse ignoring the scientific consensus in favour of the (often unqualified) minority?[/i]
I am actually interested in a direct answer to this, Carazaa. Is your denial of mainstream science consistent and logical or is it only in areas where it conflicts with a position you hold too dear to yield?
Carazaa · F
@Bushranger I addressed this already about 10 times. Did your read my replies?
1-25 of 32