Spirituality
29 Jul 15
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFair enough, let's be specific.
You want me to answer your complaints on the video, but admit you only watched about 17 minutes of it. Then you want me to reply to your objections, but fail to give me any proof of what you are objecting to and just say explanations can be found in any geology textbooks. You do not seem to realize textbooks don't keep up with the current discoveries in geo ...[text shortened]... and contain many errors just like biology textbooks that teach evolution. 😏
The Near Genius
Here is one example that I am objecting to, and let's take this really only one thing at a time - although even in the first 17 minutes there were numerous statements that I could challenge.
This is what your "scientist" said (and allow me to paraphrase):
There are marine creatures, nautiloids as thick as your arm, buried in sediment whilst standing on their heads, found at the top of the canyon. ONLY A WORLDWIDE FLOOD COULD HAVE DONE THIS! Evolutionists (sic!) are at a loss to explain how this could have happened!
Firstly, no, a worldwide flood will NOT explain what your presenter said. Assuming that a huge flood or other catastrophe caused marine animals that were living at the bottom of the ocean to be instantly covered and preserved (like the mammoths of Siberia) then they would still be at the bottom of the ocean, and not high up on a mountain.
Here's what we think happened, based on observable evidence.
But first an aside: Contrary to your and YEC opinion, geologists (and all other scientists) do not meet in huddles to decide how to falsify the conclusions so that it LOOKS old, in spite of the evidence that it is actually young, just so that they can refute the Bible story in Genesis. What happens is that scientists take available data and try to put it in a pattern as best they can. They compare notes, form hypotheses and update them as new data becomes available. That is all that happens, and it is an exciting process.
Now a quick thumbnail sketch of geology. You need to know first of all that there are three classes of rock, as follows:
1. Igneous rocks, formed out of magma from the core of the earth, that solidified either slowly, still within the earth and hence has large crystals, or fast when spilled out on surface, which then forms small crystals.
2. Sedimentary rocks that formed out of the fragments of other rocks that had been eroded and fractured by physical and chemical means. This is the rock in the Grand Canyon. When the individual particles that make up the rock are well rounded, it shows that they were transported for long distances by wind or water.
3. Metamorphic rocks are either of the above two that have been transformed by high temperatures and pressure to recrystallize and form new structures.
Now without going into any time durations at all, the sequence of events for the GC fossils to have formed and ended up where they are, is as follows:
1. Magma rises to the surface and cools forming an igneous rock.
2. The rock is eroded over "a period of time" and broken into little pieces
3. These pieces are transported long distances because they are well rounded and spherical, which happened over "a period of time"
4 they are now deposited on the bottom of a lake to form a bed. In the case of the sudden covering of sea creatures in a short period, the covering must have happened rather quickly, with lots of sediment being transported. No problem.
5 Now this material must be compacted to form a sedimentary rock. This also takes time.
6. Now huge forces cause the rock to uplift hundreds even thousands of feet. This happens due to tectonic plate movements, which also formed the Himalayas. We know that this happens even today, at the rate of about two inches a year (about the rate of your finger nails growing). It can and is being measured today. The North American plate moving over the Pacific plate caused buckling due to these huge forces.
7. This is not yet the end! Because now we need erosion again to expose the buried fossils and dig the canyon. Remember, the rocks are now hard and erode slowly. Time passes.
Do you get the picture? Even if you do not agree with this sequence of events, you have not answered what part of this was caused by the Flood, the deposition or the erosion.
Also, the Flood story cannot explain the formation of the sandstone from rounded grains (rounded when?) and the hardening of the sandstone rock after depositioning.
Is this enough for a start?
So I have refuted your speakers words that "scientsts do not know what happened" and also that "this could only have happened by means of a worldwide flood."
Over to you, "Near Genius".
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustQuick, find a video that you think will refute all of Cal's arguments. There MUST be one out there. Hurry before it's too late and someone else responds.
Fair enough, let's be specific.
Here is one example that I am objecting to, and let's take this really only one thing at a time - although even in the first 17 minutes there were numerous statements that I could challenge.
This is what your "scientist" said (and allow me to paraphrase):
[i] There are marine creatures, nautiloids as thick as your arm ...[text shortened]... at "this could only have happened by means of a worldwide flood."
Over to you, "Near Genius".
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by ZahlanziFor one thing this was no science paper as you assume. This was a news report. So yes. I can replace 10-15 million years with 6 thousand years, if I wish, since all of those dates are only opinions and not scientific facts. 😏
so you take a scientific paper that has 10-15 million in it. you cross that out with a crayola and write 6000 over it. boom, paper supports creationism.
"but rjhinds, this paper says 10-15 million years ago, why ...?"
"However, if the estimated time frame was reduced to the time of Noah's flood"
"but you can't do that, it says 10-15 million years ago ...[text shortened]... ed to the time of noah's flood, this paper supports noah's flood even though at first it didn't"
05 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsC'mon, Smugface, you can do better than that!
For one thing this was no science paper as you assume. This was a news report. So yes. I can replace 10-15 million years with 6 thousand years, if I wish, since all of those dates are only opinions and not scientific facts. 😏
That was the Best proof ever of a global flood with which you wanted to convince us that geological evidence of the billions of earthe is all a lie.
Now you simply say: Aw, gee, actually I don't really think it was THAT good!
Admit it. You have been weighed and found wanting. Nobody should ever again take any of your rubbish videos seriously.
If you had any honor, you would hang your head in shame. All wind and no substance.
😕. 😠. 😛
05 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustSo your first objection is to this statement
Fair enough, let's be specific.
Here is one example that I am objecting to, and let's take this really only one thing at a time -
There are marine creatures, nautiloids as thick as your arm HAVE DONE THIS! Evolutionists (sic!) are at a loss to explain how this could have happened!
There are marine creatures, nautiloids as thick as your arm, buried in sediment whilst standing on their heads, found at the top of the canyon. ONLY A WORLDWIDE FLOOD COULD HAVE DONE THIS! Evolutionists are at a loss to explain how this could have happened!
You apparently believe a worldwide flood can not explain it as the speaker opines. So I suppose you believe there is some other explanation that evolutionists have devised that explains it all. You have the free will to believe what you wish and the pastor does too. So I see no problem with him stating his beliefs on this matter. 😏
05 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustI never claimed this was the best proof ever of a global flood. I believe that was the title given to the video by whoever posted it on youtube. Bring up youtube and search for that title and I believe you will find it. 😏
C'mon, Smugface, you can do better than that!
That was the [b]Best proof ever of a global flood with which you wanted to convince us that geological evidence of the billions of earthe is all a lie.
Now you simply say: Aw, gee, actually I don't really think it was THAT good!
Admit it. You have been weighed and found wanting. Nobody should ...[text shortened]... ver again take any of your rubbish videos seriously.
All wind and no substance.
😕. 😠. 😛[/b]
05 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIt was the title under which YOU posted it on this forum.
. I believe that was the title given to the video by whoever posted it on youtube.
What for?
Did you or did you not think it was wonderfully convincing?
Do you now agree your hero was deliberately lying, when he said that geologists have no explanation for the fossils in the Grand Canyon?
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustIt was probably a habit thing that led me to post the same title. If I had anticipated the title was going to be so controversal, I might have considered not using it. However, i believe it is a good video in support of geological evidence that could have happened at the time of the flood and shortly after.
It was the title under which YOU posted it on this forum.
What for?
Did you or did you not think it was wonderfully convincing?
Do you now agree your hero was deliberately lying, when he said that geologists have no explanation for the fossils in the Grand Canyon?
Yes, I do think the video is wonderfully convincing to the person with an open mind. But I now see that you are not one of them.
I do not believe the pastor was deliberately lying. He appears to be convinced by his own argument to me. I am pretty sure that I remember him saying that evolutionist, not all geologist, do not have an explanation. And by that, he obviously means that they do not have a credible argument that meets all the facts. 😏
Originally posted by RJHindsHere's the deal: in order to have an opinion on any matter, you need at least a minimum of knowledge about the subject. "Belief" does not enter into it.
You apparently believe a worldwide flood can not explain it as the speaker opines. So I suppose you believe there is some other explanation that evolutionists have devised that explains it all. You have the free will to believe what you wish and the pastor does too. So I see no problem with him stating his beliefs on this matter. 😏
For example, if I told you that I "believe" that the moon was made of cream cheese, you could reasonably respond: "No, that is not true. People have been up there and brought back rocks."
Now it would NOT be a reasonable response from me to say to you: "Fine, that is your belief, and you have a free will which allows you to have it!"
In order to have any kind of reasonable discussion, both parties should bring their evidence to the table, and then the merits of both can be discussed.
But this has been pointed out to you many times. You make statements, and post videos to prove something or other, but the moment anybody challenges it you simply say: "That is your opinion, and you are deluded, or worse, you are intentionally lying".
Actually, your fraudulent and insincere approach to the subjects you yourself raise is well known. What depresses me far more than that, is that there are people out there, like the pastor in your clip, that speaks authoritatively to unwary Christians who believe every word he says ( "because surely he MUST know what he is talking about" ) and who are neither willing nor able to challenge him.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJust"Nobody should ever again take any of your rubbish videos seriously."
C'mon, Smugface, you can do better than that!
That was the [b]Best proof ever of a global flood with which you wanted to convince us that geological evidence of the billions of earthe is all a lie.
Now you simply say: Aw, gee, actually I don't really think it was THAT good!
Admit it. You have been weighed and found wanting. Nobody should ...[text shortened]... f you had any honor, you would hang your head in shame. All wind and no substance.
😕. 😠. 😛[/b]
when has anyone ever?
common, you know the reason anyone engages rjhinds is to smugly show again and again how ignorant and unwilling to think he is.
06 Aug 15
Originally posted by CalJustEvolution Is A Religion Based Upon Faith And Assumptions That Have Nothing To Do With Science
Here's the deal: in order to have an opinion on any matter, you need at least a minimum of knowledge about the subject. "Belief" does not enter into it.
For example, if I told you that I "believe" that the moon was made of cream cheese, you could reasonably respond: "No, that is not true. People have been up there and brought back rocks."
Now it would ...[text shortened]... he MUST know what he is talking about" ) and who are neither willing nor able to challenge him.
