quote:

---

quote:

---

Can you at all demonstrate that the Grand Canyon sits on a similar fault and is made of the same materials? Can you point to any other canyons formed in the same way?

---

Oh, so because it doesn't work for your model/beliefs it's my fault I wasn't around to observe when the Grand Canyon was formed? I'll take Chinese Water Torture formed canyons for $500, Alex.

The Toutle "Little Grand Canyon", over 120 feet deep, formed during Mt. St. Helens eruption. I pointed.

---

So you're extrapolating from one event that all events are similar in nature.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Can you at all demonstrate that the Grand Canyon sits on a similar fault and is made of the same materials? Can you point to any other canyons formed in the same way?

---

Oh, so because it doesn't work for your model/beliefs it's my fault I wasn't around to observe when the Grand Canyon was formed? I'll take Chinese Water Torture formed canyons for $500, Alex.

The Toutle "Little Grand Canyon", over 120 feet deep, formed during Mt. St. Helens eruption. I pointed.

---

So you're extrapolating from one event that all events are similar in nature.

---

I posted an event and was challenged to show another such event, and did so. Considering the entirity of ancient universe/earth science is based primarily on extrapolation of appearance of age the shifting sand (pun intended) is squarely under your feet. It's comical you just used that phrasing in a dismissive attempt, to deflect the undeniable reality of either example.

How about focus on the facts shown from them happening? You know, like a scientist. Polystrate trees formed in a matter of months that we were formerly told would take many years. Extrapolate the amazing impacts of these observed science across the potential outcome of a single cataclysmic flood hundreds of thousand times more intense and over a prolonged period.

I look at the shock and surprise at the meteorologist witnessing the impact of a few inches of rain in Houston and understand the difficulty to fathom an actual Genesis flood.

And you still have the entirety of the geological record to address. Read the link that Aggrad posted. Start there and come back to us. Simply put, you can NEVER get the type of strata, the fossil record, the formation of mountains, the formation of things like the Grand Canyon in a one year period. It's honestly very interesting to see sudden geologic changes from events like floods and earthquakes, but few people would doubt the power of a strong event. The insanity is trying to extrapolate from one event to all events unless you can demonstrate uniformity in their situations. I guarantee the sediment at these events is vastly different from something like the Grand Canyon.

Guarantees aren't scientific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Guarantees aren't scientific.

---

Young Earth Creationism isn't scientific. Guarantees are based on knowledge of the evidence. For example, I guarantee humans and nonavian Dinosaurs never, ever lived together. That's a scientific guarantee.

---

"Dinosaurs" is a word created in the 19th century. About as meaningful as your guarantees.

Geologists are well trained to read the rocks as laid down by wind and rain sediments over long periods of time. Cataclysms, such as floods and volcanic eruptions are capable of creating layered strata and fossils as well. In fact, they may be a better way of explaining other things, like why fossils don't form today. Recently, more geologists ARE admitting that many of the earths features are catastrophe related. But you hear a lot more about "Ice Ages" than floods. If you were to acknowledge grand catastrophes, shouldn't you also consider Noah's great flood? Shhhh.....there's a blind evolutionist over there!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Guarantees aren't scientific.

---

Young Earth Creationism isn't scientific. Guarantees are based on knowledge of the evidence. For example, I guarantee humans and nonavian Dinosaurs never, ever lived together. That's a scientific guarantee.

---

"Dinosaurs" is a word created in the 19th century. About as meaningful as your guarantees.

Geologists are well trained to read the rocks as laid down by wind and rain sediments over long periods of time. Cataclysms, such as floods and volcanic eruptions are capable of creating layered strata and fossils as well. In fact, they may be a better way of explaining other things, like why fossils don't form today. Recently, more geologists ARE admitting that many of the earths features are catastrophe related. But you hear a lot more about "Ice Ages" than floods. If you were to acknowledge grand catastrophes, shouldn't you also consider Noah's great flood? Shhhh.....there's a blind evolutionist over there!

---

Now this is fun. Dinosaurs are a recognized scientific clade with defined membership based on shared cladistic traits and common ancestry. What you just said, that they are just a "word," that might be the absolute strangest way to dismiss Dinosaurs that I have ever heard of.

That's only rivaled by your attempt to explain fossils as being created by volcanoes and floods. Please explain how organic material like a bone is thoroughly mineralized and becomes a fossil almost immediately due to a flood. Then please explain how they managed to be ordered perfectly according to complexity and to never be found outside of their geologic time according to the strata.

Of course geologists accept that catastrophes can cause local changes. That doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of geological feature show zero sign of being formed in a catastrophe and that there is no plausible natural method for your great flood. You still can't address that.

Neither can you. You can only say it had to happen over time. You have to admit that there are examples of local strata layering because it's been observed. You wouldn't even accept that if it hadn't been. You'd postulate and pontificate about the eons it took for this to have formed. Now THAT'S a guarantee!

quote:

---

Neither can you. You can only say it had to happen over time. You have to admit that there are examples of local strata layering because it's been observed. You wouldn't even accept that if it hadn't been. You'd postulate and pontificate about the eons it took for this to have formed. Now THAT'S a guarantee!

---

Way to ignore everything else and keep beating this horse. But those layers are still going to follow the principle of superposition. Newer layers will be on top of older layers. Fossils from an older layer will not be found in a newer layer, etc....

There are plenty of exceptions to your hypothesis on layers. Are you suggesting the geologic column os exact globally? There are places where the fossil layers are exactly opposite of where they are supposed to be.

"Every trend must go too far and evoke its own reversal." Hera****us 500 BC

Guy knew the psuedo-scientists would take their crayons to assert extreme guarantees and absolutism. I believe in God. Therefore I believe in miracles. Nothing that occured due to the miracle of creation or a global flood changes the observed sciences. Does it leave you upset and bewildered to the point of a tantrum because you can't play god backwards? Yup. Not my problem. That's the end of the debate.

I choose to accept a miraculous universe which ultimately can't be explained scientifically. Strange that it is your ilk who pervade a RELIGION & PHILOSIPHY board acting like it's YEC who are in the wrong place.

Get over yourselves.

quote:

---

There are places where the fossil layers are exactly opposite of where they are supposed to be.

---

EDIT- Sapper beat me to it.

quote:

---

I choose to accept a miraculous universe which ultimately can't be explained scientifically. Strange that it is your ilk who pervade a RELIGION & PHILOSIPHY board acting like it's YEC who are in the wrong place.

---

Then why do you keep trying to answer these questions with scientific analysis?

You could easily leave it at "God wills it" but you keep running into problems when you try to apply scientific logic to your supernatural beliefs.

Also, it isn't strange to question beliefs. Nobody is forcing you to have conversations that don't directly reinforce your beliefs.

Are you saying that there exists a consistent geologic column around the earth?

quote:

---

Are you saying that there exists a consistent geologic column around the earth?

---

What do you mean by consistent? You aren't going to find the entire geologic history of earth in many places at all. Rarely a local event causes vertical stratigraphy or the shifting of plates causes displaced strata. But you can still date the different strata to their original dates by isotope decay, fossils, and sediment analysis.

quote:

---

Are you saying that there exists a consistent geologic column around the earth?

---

Consistent as in uniform? Of course not that would be absurd.

quote:

---

Strange that it is your ilk who pervade a RELIGION & PHILOSIPHY board acting like it's YEC who are in the wrong place.

---

No one said this is the wrong place for YECs. If anything, YEC threads are the most entertaining threads we get.

quote:

---

Are you saying that there exists a consistent geologic column around the earth?

---

Psst. You are making claims. It is on you to back up those claims, not anybody else.

there are trees that are still alive today that are older than the Flood. How did they survive?

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange that it is your ilk who pervade a RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY board acting like it's YEC who are in the wrong place.

---

No one said this is the wrong place for YECs. If anything, YEC threads are the most entertaining threads we get.

---

The atheists and agnostics and deists aren't the only ones that think the YEC position is incompatible with truth. They just happen to be the ones posting. Moreover, if the atheists and agnostics and deists are welcome here, then so are those who believe in a young Earth and a non-allegorical understanding of Genesis.

---

I've tried to make that point to OA1 multiple times: that being a Christian doesn't require believe in a young earth.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone looks at ice layer data and concludes young earth. It makes no sense to worship a God that creates the fake appearance of age.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Strange that it is your ilk who pervade a RELIGION & PHILOSOPHY board acting like it's YEC who are in the wrong place.

---

No one said this is the wrong place for YECs. If anything, YEC threads are the most entertaining threads we get.

---

The atheists and agnostics and deists aren't the only ones that think the YEC position is incompatible with truth. They just happen to be the ones posting. Moreover, if the atheists and agnostics and deists are welcome here, then so are those who believe in a young Earth and a non-allegorical understanding of Genesis.

---

I've tried to make that point to OA1 multiple times: that being a Christian doesn't require believe in a young earth.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone looks at ice layer data and concludes young earth. It makes no sense to worship a God that creates the fake appearance of age.

---

I disagree it's fake. Had someone been there for day 6 to look at Adam, how old would they conclude he was? 30 years? 1 day? I guess it depends on your perspective. That's why I don't like the term "young earth." Adam wasn't "young" as in an infant even though he had been alive for only minutes.

What if Adam had smallpox scars, and evidence of a long healed broken arm?

quote:

---

How does one verify radioisotope dates that result in billions of years of age?

---

Great question! Dating these items can hardly be called science (if science is limited to things we can see and touch). The moment you begin to write a "record", it is no longer science but a narrative based on faith assumptions.

So, the earth might have popped into existence at midnight last night, for all we know.

You know that more often than that trees don't grow a ring, and that tree ring dates tend to be slightly young where they error? And have been shown to match dates from radiometric methods as well as annual varves. How do you explain Lake Suigetsu ? How do you explain starlight? How do you explain boiling oceans? It's amazing you point to small tidbits (which actually have explanations if you look them up from real scientists) while simultaneously ignoring that your own models fail a thousand times over in drastic ways (such as boiling oceans, not having enough energy, asserting all the stars in the sky are a mirage). The list of YEC scientific failures in endless and yet you falsely nitpick with bad scientist who are largely operating outside the field of their expertise.

quote:

---

I disagree it's fake. Had someone been there for day 6 to look at Adam, how old would they conclude he was? 30 years? 1 day? I guess it depends on your perspective. That's why I don't like the term "young earth." Adam wasn't "young" as in an infant even though he had been alive for only minutes.

---

There would be no need to hundreds of thousands of years worth of seasons be built into ice if that were true. It could have been just one big block. It makes no sense to age to something you just poofed into existence.