K, like I said. There is a VERY small amount of scientist who are Creasionist, I'm guessing here but i'dd be suprised if there's more then a hundred, and I'm pretty sure that most if not all are directly payed by Creasionist groups.Second, Like your link clearly shows you find 1 clearly biased article, there are a bunch of articles from reputable unbiased sources to support mine. Whith unbiased I mean, my sources have no links to atheist groups who are out to disprove Creationism,tey are simple scientist hypothesising. Third I've been very patient here in my posts. If I say something I always point out how I support what I say. If you ask me a specific question, I answer or provide a link wich answers it better then I can. I've asked you quite a few direct questions which you never answer. I think I've also been very clear I think in how I reach my conclusions, I don't use technobabble, since I'm a layman myself I wouldn't be able to provide it even if I wanted to. So anyone can follow my thinking. So far, the burden of proof has been squarely on my shoulders, altough my hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force.So if you are not capable or willing to answer a couple of questions clearly in this post. I'll consider this conversation done. I'm sorry to be a bit rude about it. But an argument becomes pretty dull when all it is me explaining my thinking over and over and never get something substantive back as to how you come to your conclusions. And just so you know. I'm not even close to out of ways to disprove a young earth. I haven't talked about ice core's, ice ages etc.
1. how do you feel the number of supernova's found proves your point?
2. 'The hypothesis of dinosaurs being made extinct by an asteroid impact, large volcanoes, and climate change is not correct.' So supervolcanoes don't exist and haven't exploded in the past? They have found the crater of the impacter and there is a uniform layer of a very rare element found in the same layer of rock. What's the crater and how did Irridium get dispersed so evenly?
3. Why would science in all it fields concoct a story to disprove Creationism? (motive)
I have more but start with those.
1. Nyet. I've already stated that science itself was created by what you call scientists who are creationist. What a bunch of malarkey you just wrote. The church ruled science. This started to change in 1795 with James Hutton who first proposed uniformitarianism and plutonism. That lead to Charles Lyell who developed it and in turn influenced Charles Darwin. So mainly, it was the other way around. See what I mean when I say atheists are usually WRONG. I should be the one who should be saying that your "hypothesis doesn't involve an invisible, unprovable force." I do not claim evolution as something that happens over millions of years and we can't see it nor prove it in experiments, but it is there and working. See the sheer folly of this layman's thinking folks? LOL. I am laughing so hard my sides hurt. Yes, your argument is very dull when you cannot prove how an universe started and is "now" claimed to be around 13.7 billion years instead of 15 or 20. Some of these you claim to be "scientists" think there could be multiverses instead of a single universe. The truth is the Bible cannot change and it has been science who has backed up the Bible. While evolution changes all the time as science does not back it up. Science says that it is "suppose" to change if something is not correct and that is how it works. So evolution changes. Like I said, what a bunch of malarkey.
If you could disprove a young earth, then you would have done it in a couple of sentences already. And the claim that I provided a "biased" link. Why is it biased? Because the scientific establishment will not allow such theories to be entered today. They rule today and the rules do not want to bring back the creation scientists whom they worked hard and over a century to usurp. Earlier, I stated that scientists cannot proclaim creation or else they may lose their jobs.
The big deal about a young earth is that it would disprove evolution. Evo need billions of years. If the earth was 6,000 years old, then we would see this "invisible" force called evolution working.
Evolution debunked in a couple of sentences: If the earth were billions of years old, then there would an incredible amount of sediment on our ocean floors. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep.
Save your ice core, ice ages, etc. as we probably would be getting more science that will just end up changing.
So, go run along since the topic is too boring for you. Probably you're tired of getting your arse handed to you each time I post.
I'll bite. Where have you kicked my ass. Point out exactly where you have said something I can't quite easily rebuke. I'll answer this last one. Sediment turns into rocks whith age and pressure (e.a. white cliffs of dover are planctonic algea of the Creatausious period). Rock moves because of plate tectonics. It's a living system of rocks sliding under oneanother and new rocks being formed. It's the basis of geoligy.
-I have proven it beyond what you can consider reasonable. I've covered radiometric dating(which you don't accept), included a link to numerous other dating methods. Wich I'll do again.
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Which you don't answer.
- I moved on to paleontoligy by pointing out that species are chronoligical distributed troughout the strata and not like what you would expect in your version of earth strewnout togheter.( wich you didn't adress)
-Then I moved onto geoligy itself by pointing out that the times needed to make materials and fossils doesn't fit into your 6000 year old timeframe and I asked you what process you can think of to bury a fossil 2000 meters deep beneath the seafloor expect a very long time ( which you didn't adress)
-We started discussing astronomy whith me pointing out that supernova's take at least a couple of million years to explode and the fact that we see stars way further then 6000 lightyears away, at which time you first tried to put in doubt how astronemers calculated distance. And i replied with no less then 3 different ways they do so and I'll give you a 4 one the prefered one using another link.
What Is Parallax?. When that didn't work, you tried to blame it on spacetime . Which I then explained how it's not apllicable to how we perceive light from stars and it certanly woudn't make it possible to see future events.
- We also used bioligy with you trying to make he claim that ppl at the time of Moses had a lifespan 10 times longer then ours. Altoug not a single piece of remains to prove that theory has been forthcoming. And unlike your claim plenty of acient graves have been found from stone age to Egyptians none have tooth of more then 80 years old.
Red Lady cave burial reveals Stone Age secrets
-We dabled in history me saying that altough there is evidence of prehistoric cataclysms none of a near global flood and no written record of a few worldchanching disasters altough the written word has been around for millenia. Again proving that a young earth doesn't hold up. ( another point you didn't adress)
I have proven it numerous times using different methods and your respons has always been. Don't adress it or try to make the science wrong or claim science falsifies data. If it is a conspiracy it litterlally involves millions of ppl in the know, keeping a secret a creating false science that is almost seamlesly perfect. In other words completly impossible. Ask any politicain or intelligence opperative how easy it is to keep a secret when 100 ppl know the truth and what the chances are that millions of scientist could keep a secret.
Every time I post just like here. In front of all these people.
Then our ocean floor should be chalk or rock, but it's still sediment. There should be more chalk and rocks all around. The White Cliffs of Dover did not take millions of years, but thousands. And plate tectonics and continental drift is what creation scientists proposed many years ago. Another usurpation. This also led to catastrophic plate tectonics to explain Noah's Flood. Your scientists have not explained why 3/4 of our planet is covered in water. Honestly, you purport science but use hocus pocus. Just where do we see what you purport in our lifetime? Much of what you believe as evolution is hypotheses, scientific guessing or even swag.
Let me ask ask a couple of questions to see if you do know about radiometric dating. Who created or is credited for it?
Fossils occur in relatively quick fashion. I think it has been shown experimentally. It also happens where the creatures fell in the conditions which fossils become fossilized. It does not form a layer that reflect a time period as widely believed. As for geochronology, I'll take a look when I can. Probably forgot.
And I pointed out even if supernovas take millions of years to explode (which it doesn't), then there should be more supernovas.
All of which you purport saying that it is in different scientific fields is based on evolution and evolutionary thinking. One group of evos argue that it is strictly biology and I have to correct them and show them that it covers all. It belongs to ToE.
Version 2, Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas | NCEI This is the sediment thickness on the ocean floor. I'm not a marine geoligist but it's not distributed evenly and I'm guessing it's because of ocean currents.
-The continental crust is typically from
30 km (20 mi) to 50 km (30 mi) thick and is mostly composed of slightly less dense rocks than those of the oceanic crust. Some of these less dense rocks, such as granite, are common in the continental crust but rare to absent in the oceanic crust.
So say again why you feel there should be more rock and why you think the ocean floor is just sediment?
Where Did Earth's Water Come From?
-This is how scientist explain water on the planet. You are right there is no definitive proof. I'll say this to it,
show me where in Genisis it sais only 3/4 of the planet was covered in water and where it sais that there was catastrophic plate tectonics?
On the subject of that, and this is something i looked up in thz interest of honesty it's physicly impossible because of this:
Magnetic fields can, in some conditions, heat water.
Magnetic resonance effects can dissipate as heat - but this effect is
tiny and can barely be detected. If the effect wasn't minuscule, power line transformers would flash boil and steam everything around them every time it rained - not to mention pumping out heat into the surrounding water vapour in the air. The heating effect is also relative to magnetic field strength, and even in the strongest magnetic fields the energy delivered is negligible. In terms of magnetic field strength (measured in Teslas, T) loudspeakers generate fields of 1 - 2.4T,
MRI instruments generate fields up to 9T in strength (and don't flash boil the water in the human body). The Earth's magnetic field, by comparison, is thousands of times weaker than this on the order of 58 µT (5.8×10−5 T) at most. Reversing the magnetic field of the Earth, as described in the creationist theory, cannot deliver that sort of energy to the water.
"Lighter mantle material" rising up is completely insane. One would need something heavier to take its place for it to rise instead of a complete vacuum. In Earth's molten infancy all the lighter material had already risen to the top, resulting in the continents. This is to say nothing of all the water that would have flash boiled from the ocean floors as they grew molten and rose, killing anything living.
Stones and Bones: Dismissing "catastrophic plate tectonics"
On the subject of radiometric dating with the internet at my disposal it was very simple to find who is credited for it Bertram Boltwood was his name. I fail to see how it proves anything.
-Now to evolution. First Question, why don't we see evolution in our lifetime? Answer: the theory of evolution sais itself it needs several thousand of generations to see any meaningfull changes, in nature that is. We see evolution at work in bacteria wich have a very short generational lifespan. (resistant to all kown antibiotics come to mind) and even in more evolved lifeform. Dogs can be bred selectivly to produce dogs who are adapted to specific tasks being obvious. We also see a in the fossil record a clear evolving from sealife to more and more complex lifeforms. It's actually pretty interesting, that you chose the argument, that we can't see it happening so it didn't happen at all. You claim an all powerfull being created everyting with no more evidence then a 3000 or 4000 thousand year old book,of which author and sourcematerial are unknown. I put to you that SOME of science is hypothesising about what could make something happen but ALL of Genesis is hocus pocus like you put it. It simply doesn't hold up to closer ,and in alot of cases ANY scrutiny.
I have a very clear challenge to you if you choose to accept it. You have the entire net at your disposal. If you find 1 example of a large mamal in a strata that holds the dinosaurs you will win this argument. You claim they coexisted so you should have no trouble.
-Now lets talk about forming of materials and fossils
How Does Oil Form? This is how oil forms instance forms it's indicative of what I mean. They use science like I understand it to predict where they can find it. Fossils per defenition are older then 10000 years.
The Learning Zone: What is a fossil? This links describes in detail what a fossil is. It also nicely ties in with your whole sediment argument. If you think the seafloor is just sediment that means that the fossilisation process would take longer not shorter in time.
How Coal Is Formed This is how coal is formed, it requires as you can read a very specific habitat, a habitat that requires a very specific climate. A climate that in some cases is vastly different from it's current one, unless you think Antartica is a good place to have a tropical swamp?
Mining in Antarctica
I can go on and on but you get the picture.
-You used your supernova argument a few times. I answered it before but I'll do it again and I'll ask you a question to. As I said before a supernova is an explosion, after that explosion it leaves dust. It's visible only a short time. It's believed to occur oe on average in our milky way, there are billions upon billions of galaxies, the trick is to have a telescope trained on a galaxy as the explosion occurs. It makes that galaxy brighter for a short time
Bright Supernova This is a list of the current ACTIVE supernova this is not a hypothesis this is currently observed. About a 1000 a year and climbing. Tell me again what your point is?
Since I don't want any misunderstandings in a long post I highlighted my questions to you please answer them if you can.
