@jknengr One last thing. Many years ago I was an evolutionist trying to reconcile the Bible to what I had been taught as a scientist. That is until one day, I was taken in the spirit into outer space, and I watched a replay of the creation of the solar system with my own eyes.
Having seen it with my own eyes, I then began to find that the science supported what I saw. I have not seen anything since then (1976) that even remotely hints at the fantasy of evolution or long age for the earth.
@jknengr Also, do you REALLY think you had a trained scientific mind at 6 years of age? REALLY? REALLY NOW?
Would it surprise you that the story of the flood is almost universally present in the traditions of every people group on the planet? World wide, every culture has the flood in their traditions. Even the most remote, like the pygmys in Australia. Why do you suppose that is? Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There was a universal flood.
@jknengr Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Notice the word "daughters". Cain married one of his sisters. In case you didn't notice, it was daughters in the plural, not the singular. Normally I wouldn't point this out, but it is apparent that:
(1) Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, or
(2) You haven't actually read the Bible, thus making you ignorant of the thing you are asserting.
The T-rex soft tissue in the bone sample discovered by Dr. Mary Shweitzer is evidence enough that dinosuars didn't live millions of years ago. This is a spanner in the evolution machine. Therefore humans co-existed with dinosaurs a couple of thousand years ago. Evolution is a lie, the biggest lie in human history.
@MrPieter1978 Actually read the damn paper if you can. It is fossilized soft tissue and more complicated than you think. Creationists have bastardized and quote mined this work to serve their purpose persuading the ignorant. It is Not "soft tissue". An education in basic biology would cure you of your ignorance.
Oh dear, the mistakes of facts and logic in the first few minutes.You really can't argue with such misinformation because to do so you would have to provide a comprehensive remedial education and it would be equivalent to trying to teach someone a foreign language in five minutes.
I was dismayed at the level of abuse in the comments though. Rationalists don't improve their case by ad hominem attacks.
according to the math, if you had any amount of carbon 14, it will never decay to no carbon 14. this is not true ofc but it would not take 3000 years for c14 to decay.
There are 20 different kinds of radiometric dating. They all cross chenk each other.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before it was invented.
Diamonds have C14, so what?
They soked the 70 million year old fossils in strong acid for weeks to get ''soft tissue''. So what? The fossil is still 70 million years old. That did not change.
Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
Yes lets do the math how long did it take to form the grand canyon??
The canyon was created by the action of the Colorado River over about 6 million years of erosion. Nearly two billion years of the Earth's history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted.
@RachaeLeNoire Sorry Rachael, you don't know what you are talking about. I'vwe read lots of articles on the GC, and every thing you asserted is wrong. It was gouged out over about a week. All indications of age show that the top layers of the sediments are the same age as the bottom. For example: the desert varnish is the same thickness at the top as at the bottom, indicating same age. There is much more, but hold onto your fantasy. Hell is not yet full.
@BroCope The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains [tilted], worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut, in 2 weeks. How long do you think this took?
Stop looking at the canyon and look at the rocks it exposed.
@gregrutz You stated the proof of flood already. If the layers were laid down over millions of years, they would not be level. Erosion during the intervening years would have eroded the top of each layer so that the intersections would not be level. There would be massive evidence of erosion between the layers. But what do we see? We see layer after layer, level, parallel, and without erosional events at the intersections. This points to flood deposition, not excessive time.
@BroCope Erosion makes mountains into plains. Level sediments happen in lakes and seas all the time. Erosion leaves a gap in the geologic column, an UNCOMFORMITY.
Sorry but it takes time to erode a mountain down, it took 5 million years to carve the Grand Canyon but billions of years to build up those layers.
I state things that seem to be right. Therefore I'm right.
I cherry pick statements without doing the math myself, therefore my assumptions are correct.
I present evidence on things that only I or a select group have had access, therefore it is a fact. No open review. No credibility. No evidence. Shame on these folk.
Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see.
They don't use Carbon 14 to date fossils [or diamonds] and it only works up to 60,000 years, they date ash layers above and below fossils and date them with other radiometric dating methods. Get your facts straight.
@gregrutz What a numbskull you are. Of course they don't use C14 to date fossils, because the half life is so short. But get this moron. It is the presence of C14 where it can not be if the dating paradigm is true that is the smoking gun proof that the long age chronologies are fantasies. It is not even the only evidence. Over my lifetime I have read dozens of artickles about human artifacts, and even one skeleton, that were brought up out of coal mines. You trust in fairy tales
@AkiThePirate Are you for real. Every thing I stated in my presentation was evidence for a young earth. The evidence is enough to destroy the fantasy you believe in
@BroCope For Niagra falls, you assume a constant rate, which you'd almost certainly say is wrong if done with radioactive dating.
Comets: You clearly don't understand anything about the Oort cloud, not even knowing where it's meant to be, let alone anything about the mechanics allowing for both its existence and the injection of comets.
Carbon 14 can arrive in areas through other means, and I'd love you to go right ahead and show your sources.
@AkiThePirate Even if the rate fluctuates, it would have to be near zero for most of the time it is supposed to been in existence. The rate of 5 feet/yr is an average based upon the time we have observed the falls. Besides all of evolution is based upon uniformitarianism which assume m/l constant rates.
All I understand about the Oort cloud is that in spite of all of our scientific expertise, there is no direct evidence for it's existence. It is all conjecture. You can invent all kinds
@BroCope of mechanics that work for things that don't exist.
As for C14, it is made from Nitrogen 14 by a high energy particle from the sun. When it decays it returns to nitrogen. While C14 can move in/out of natural gas and oil, what is the mechanism for movement into coal that is a mile underground? And please explain to me how it can infiltrate the densest crystal in the universe?
As for my sources, they are too numerous to list. If you had a lick of sense, you could find them also
@gregrutz Again with the idiot act. How are you going to find truth if you refuse to read the evidence produced by those who reject the fairy tale of evolution?
Here is one good source that undermines the long age chronologies - "Forbidden Archeology" It is written by two Hindus, not creationists, believers in evolution. But the fact is that man is in evidence in the fossil record all the way back to the Cambrian. If man has been around since the very first fossil bearing layer was laid
@BroCope refuse to read the evidence'' All the evidence supports evoulution !! There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
There are no man fossils in the Cambrian Period rocks or it would prove evolution wrong.
@gregrutz It was the promise of constant rates that enabled the geologic column to be formulated.
As far as the other rates you asserted, you know that they have not changed HOW? There is much evidence to the contrary. The speed of light has been measured for centuries. The experimental value has decreased by over 1800/km/sec.
Light speed and Planck's constant are inversely related, Planck's constant has increased over the same period.
@BroCope Where do you get your facts? Try reading a science book for the TRUTH. The speed of light is not changing. You don't know what the Geologic column is. ''Planck's constant has increased'' Then it wouldn't be a CONSTANT then would it ?>>>dummy.
@gregrutz The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight get here in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework?
Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.
Your criticism of population dynamics is based on ignorance of both circumstances and external influences.
Contamination of the cambrian layers isn't a surprise, but the reason these layers are named what they are is more to due with a statistical analysis of what is found within them over time. If you've ever studied maths, I'm sure you can see that such a model is pretty compelling in that at this stage we must've arrived at 12 standard deviation significance.
It really doesn't matter how manny holes you shoot in any scientific theory, as long as you don't present any proof of zombie jesus being the one and only true god.
@BroCope yea, like 4 inconsistent stories about an emty tomb proves a ressurection. The evidence for the ressurection of zombie J. is just as good as the evidence for the ressurection of Hitler. ---> Look no body!!!! therefor he must have gotten up and walked away, graverobbers couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
@cursingyorick I have seen and touched Him myself. In the Bible 500 saw Him at one time. Down through the ages thousands have seen Him alive. He doesn't appear to you because He despises you.
The Kuiper belt is real and they have found objects in it. So the Hypothesized Oort Cloud was really the real Kuiper belt. The growth rate figure you gave is even less credible. As anyone with slight knowledge of ecology knows populations grow until they reach a carrying capacity and then level off. We have only exceeded that in the past few thousand years and at a not very constant growth rate.
@snakeguy76 Obviously not a statisticfian. In order to have only 6 billion after 100,000 years REQUIRES a growth rate of functionally zero. As far as reaching a carrying capacity, the earth's population has been growing for the entire recorded hyistory of mankind. I see no leveling off. Besides, even if that vacuaous assertion were true, and not just a figment of your imagination, the statistical proof is mathematically impregnable. You are a moron.
@BroCope A growth rate that has never been as high as it has been over the last few hundred years. Check you figures again bud. The recorded history coinsides with man's technology not man's age. Yes, we were once a bunch of illiterate apes. You are living proof. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
@snakeguy76 You are a moron, aren't you. The average family size today in the US is 1.7 children. Two hundredm years ago, the average family size was closer to 7. The growth rate has never before been so low, in the history of mankind. Half of Europe, and the USA are below the replacement rate. The growth rate up until the advent of easy birth control has always been above 3 percent. To go from 8 to six billion, with an average growth rate of one-half of one percent (not 3%) - 4000 years
@snakeguy76 If mankind were on the earth for 100,000 years, and the growth rate were only one hundredth as large (.05%) statistically there would be 40,962,571,270,090,800,000,000 people on planet earth today. Now before you trot out your stupidity again, this is a mathematical certainty. Don't bring up anything about birth rates. I am talking growth rate, not birth rate. Why don't you calculate the growth rate of 2 to 6 billion given 100,000 years of occupancy. Hint: lots and lots of 0's
@BroCope No dick! You want to ignore everything about birth rates, death rates, famines, droughts, disease and everything ecologists a lot smarter than you (not saying much) have known for centuries. How do things look all the way up your ass?
@snakeguy76 Birth rates death rates can vary, but I am tallking about the growth rate. Growth rate is the average percentage growth over time. It has little to do with birth rates and death rates. It is the total population today divided by the total population last year. Birth rates are usually greater than death rates, except during certain exceptional times (Black plague...). So on average, the population has continued to grow even though death rates are high.
@BroCope The twentieth century was the most deadly century in human history, but even so, in my lifetime, I have seen the population of the US go from 200 million to close to twice that. I've seen the population of the world rise by two billion. That is a growth rate of 1% over 40 years. It only takes 4000 years to go from 8 to 6 billion at a growth rate of one-half of one percent. To assert man has been around for 100,000, you are going to have to explain where all the people and bodies are
@BroCope ''explain where all the people and bodies are''
Try looking at the fossil record. 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extince, gone, no trilobites, no dinosaurs [except the feathered ones]
@gregrutz All the human related fossils would fit in your living room. There aren't that many. The fossil record does not contain the trillions of people that would have lived in that 100,000 years. As for all the other species, extinction is a very good argument for the flood. Keep in mind that 99% of all fossils are laid down in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by deposition of suspended particulates from fast moving water, i.e. a flood. The earth is 98% covered by sediments
@BroCope So therefore, either the history of the earth is a long series of local floods, or there was one gigantic flood. The fact that marine fossils are found at the tops of every mountain range and the fact that mammalian fossils are found in the ocean point to the latter. The fossil record is one of the best proofs of the flood.
@gregrutz Sorry, but there are marine fossils at the tops of all mountains. You have no way of knowing, other than your need for it to be true, what the environment was in which they lived. All fossils are buried in mud, dim wit. That is how we get the rocks in the first place.
As for corals, it is only your need for them to have grown slowly in situ that underlies your assertion. They were carried around the globe in the flood.
As for plate tectonics, the problems with that are legion.
@BroCope For one, there is no mechanism, no plausible mechanism, to drive it. The dynamics of convection cells are enough to destroy that fantasy. But mostly, there is no energy source to drive the convection cells. A hot core is not sufficient, if indeed it is molten. In order to set up a convection cell, the heat source must be on one side of the cell only. That is not the case in the core. The heat source is central to the plates. Plus cells are formed square. That means that the heat
@BroCope the temperature differential, must be great enough to overcome the viscosity of 7,200 miles of rock which has an estimated viscosity of 10 times that of concrete (it is under great pressure).
What miniscule movement that might be detected is caused by the earth not yet having reached equilibrium since the cataclism of the flood. The earth was torn apart by the flood and is still settling down into stasis. It was only 6,000 years ago, you know.
@gregrutz Listen dim wit, the growth rate is a statistical measure of population. It is more or less independent of birth rate and death rate, because the birth rate is almost always greater than the death rate. If it were not so, we would not have 6 billion people on the planet. The growth rate is a representation of how quickly the population grows. Statistical analysis most assuredly can be applied to it.
Sedimentary rock is formed when fast moving water which holds particulate matter
@gregrutz What a numb skull. For thousands of years the scientists saw evidence for the flood in the earth. it wasn't until Charles Lyell came up with uniformitarianism that the evidence was interpreted differently.
Uniformitarianism is fading now, as more and more scientists see that the history of the world is better described by catastrophism. How were it dinosaurs wiped out? How were all the species wiped out? The main theory now is a comet at the KT boundary. Uniformitarianism=dead
@BroCope No dip shit. Charles Lyell was the father of Geology.
No one looked at the rocks before he did.
Uniformitarianism says that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
SLOWS DOWN and the particulate matter falls out. Shallow seas, or still water can not hold any particulate matter, therefore can not form deposits. While it is true that fast moving water erodes, what is more important is what happens when that fast moving water slows down.
As the flood receded from the continents, as the water depth shrank, eventually the flow was very slow. Look at the Great Lakes. Their water level since we came to this continent has continued to fall.
@BroCope The north American continent is still draining from the flood. Again consider the age of the Niagara Falls. 35,000 feet divided by 5 feet per year = 7,000 years. Consider the age of the Mississippi River delta - 7,000 years.
And by the way, where is the rock and soil gouged out of the GC? It is nowhere to be found because it was washed clean out to sea by the force of the flow. That is several hundreds of cubic miles of debris that would still be visible if the river formed it.
@gregrutz The environment for N America has not changed significantly in the centuries we have been in the US. But the level continues to drop. Your problem is that the preponderance of the evidence and reason affirm my position, not yours. I will see you on the day of judgment, if you survive the next 6 years. I will ask for the honor of being your judge. How are you with extremely hot environs? Unless you forsake your arrogant and ignorant ways, you are inescapably doomed.
@gregrutz And how do you know the sand is wind blown? If if contains fossils, it had to have been water borne. Different kinds of rock? No. All sedimentary, except for magmatic layers. The flood involved massive volcanic activity. As for corals, they could have grown there, or they could have been transported there by a massive fast moving body of water.
If the earth is covered by water, with no shores to stop the tides, two massive tidal waves would have circled the earth every day at
@BroCope over 800 miles an hour. Plenty of movement to carry and SORT the different "kinds" of materials to make up the different "kinds" of rock. You are awfully dim witted to be snared by such a faulty analysis.
@BroCope Wrong, floods don't sort fossils. Mud does not make different kinds of rock. Floods don't make limestone, lava and ash layers. you dim witted creatard.
@BroCope How do you know the sand is wind blown? Well, some people, called Geologists, accually study the rocks, not just make up shit to match the bible.
Not all fossils are in water borne rock.
Not all sedimentry rock is from water borne sediments.
Not all kinds of rock are made buy flood mud.
Stop trying to explain everthing with a flood dummy, there was no global flood.
@snakeguy76 That's right dick wad. Regardless of the birth rate or the death rate, the overall population continues to increase over time. Growth rate is measurable and is independent of birth/death rates. And crap-for-brains, if the population grows exponentially as you assert, then my argument concerning the time it takes to go from 8 to six billion is made EVEN STRONGER.
However, I doubt you know what an exponential growth rate is. If growth were exponential, and man was only on
@BroCope You are too fucking stupid to have any argument with. The growth IS exponetial, but are too much of a retard for me to explain. Read a real book about ecology. Actually try to learn something.
@gregrutz Of course I did. It has been 6000 years since Adam and Eve. My calculations start from the 8 people who came off the ark. By the way, you asserted there were 6 mass extinctions. (1) How do you know this for a fact. I am a scientist. I deal in fact, not fairy tales, so don't even bother to tell me a just-so story. What PHYSICAL evidence supports you wild-*ss mumbo-jumbo
@BroCope "It has been 6000 years since Adam and Eve". Cain killed Abel, who did he breed with, his mother? Sick Bible Stories...
The "Ark"? Come on, anyone with basic thinking skills can debunk that story. I had that figured out when I was 6 years old and sitting in Sunday School. You are no scientist. "Creation Scientist" maybe.
It is hard for me to believe that Bro understands C 14 dating. First off carbon 14 decays via expulsion of a beta particle and becomes nitrogen 14 not carbon 12. Also there is nothing unusual about finding C14 in a diamond. C14 is an isotope of carbon and chemically behaves just like carbon 12. This is why if you are doing calculations with a carbon containing compound you use 12.011 for the mass and not 12. The extra mass accounts for the natural abundance of all the isotopes of that element.
@nurglesbliss What an idiot. The half life of C14 is short - 5273 years. That means that any carbon bearing artifacts, if dated to the carboniferous period - 265 mya, could not contain any C14 whatsoever. The fact that C14 is found in ALL carboniferous deposits is proof that they can not be 265myo. Mathematically impossible. I'm afraid it is you that does not understand C14 dating.
@gregrutz The oldest written records are the ancient Egypyian and the Sumerian cultures. They go back to 4000 BC. There are no other written records older. , 6000 years. If we have been around for 100,000 years, where are the cultural records?
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
@gregrutz The formulators of the timeline you have accepted STARTED OUT with the commitment that the history of the Bible is a myth. The corrected timeline shortens the timeline by at least 2000 years. I'[ve studied this subject also. The exodus of the Jews is written about in the Egyptian writings. There is a ton of websites correcting the bad dating you have swallowed. There is even a website with pictures of the crossing site when the sea was parted. Pictures of Egyptian chariot wheels
If the earth is roughly 6000 years old, how are we able to see the light from stars that are millions of light years away. The speed of light in the vacuum of space cannot exceed approximately 186,000 mps and passing through transparent or translucent objects only serves to slow it down. I'd say that debunks a 6000 year old earth pretty effectively.
The gravitational 'well' that alters the fabric of space/time makes it seem like incoming light has traveled vast distances to reach us. We live in a space/time bubble.
Can you prove that? That sounds like a pretty wild theory. I would figure since the speed of light it at its fastest in space then a gravitational well would only serve to slow it down.
The earth might be trapped in "bubble of space-time" in a "void". According to astrophysicists at Oxford University.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are.
"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.
It's an interesting theory but highly unlikely. This seems more like speculation if anything else. Like I said, is there any proof this space-time bubble exists?
Well...I suppose that you believe in dark energy and the Orrt cloud too don't you! But they are both theories at the end of the day...just like evolution. You pick and choose the theories that fit your presuppositional paradigm and lock yourself into a narow minded world view.
Ask youself how much you really know about something as apparently simple as rock layers and stratification mechanisms...you believe in millions of years because that is what you have been taught since birth.
Both the Oort cloud and dark energy are hypothetical so their just another interesting theory at this point much like your space-time bubble. I make my decisions based on logic and logic doesn't not lend itself to a 6000 year old earth. If the earth was actually 6000 years old don't you think the scientific community would acknowledge it? I brought up the speed of light because it's science fact. It doesn't matter if I believe it or not it's still true.
So I guess you are saying that the speed of light has remained constant from the begining or since the begining of time. That the speed of light never changes and cannot be altered by gravity and that our perception of the speed of light relative to our place in the cosmos is entirely accurate and without question...I dispute these claims.
Yes, I do believe the speed of light has remained constant since the beginning. The speed of light does change while passing through transparent or translucent objects or by immense gravity but that only serves to slow it down. Is it without question? No, you can question it all you want but if you're going to say it's wrong you'd should back that up with proof.
The speed of light may not be so constant, according to a study conducted by an international team of researchers.The finding involves what physicists and cosmologists have considered a basic law of nature involving the strength of attraction between electrically charged particles. The threat to the idea of an invariable speed of light comes from measurements of another parameter called the fine structure constant or alpha.
@maggotballs There is a growing body of evidence to show that the speed of light was many orders of magnitude greater in the past. I guess you spend too much time jacking off and not enough time reading science journals.
@maggotballs pseudo science? Like asserting that nothing created everything? That the direction of evolution goes against most of our accepted laws of physics? Like asserting that life arose out of non life without any plausible means? You, my brain dead fool are the one believing in fairy tales. And in the end, just before I throw you into the lake of fire, you will admit it. Bugt it won't save you. Your time is now to make peace withj God. Then will be too late.
Yep. Pseudo-science. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know where everything came from but it couldn't stop with "god", right? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right? How does evolution violate the laws of physics and are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis? At least my "fairly tales" are falsifiable. Spare me the empty threats, chucklehead.
@maggotballs Creation is not something from nothing, idiot. We humans know how to transform mass into energy, and to a lesser extent energy into mass. Creation is God, very very smart, changing energy into mass, and then doing things with what He created. Creation is in agreement with all of the laws of physics. The big bang is not. It is everything coming out of nothing with no plausible mechanism to do it. Same goes for abiogenesis. What you assert happened is information coming into
I was talking about your "god" you dolt. Your "god" is something that came from nothing unless you believe something created him as well. The fact is if you believe "god" did all this then you'd need scientific evidence of a "god" or "gods" for that matter. Just because all the questions about the universe haven't been answered doesn't mean "god did it". Stop clinging to the "god of gaps" nonsense.
@maggotballs You continue in your ignorance. Philosophically, all things that came into existence had to have a creator, but the original first cause had to have been always existing, not coming into existence all by itself. If the creator was also created, then the problem devolves into an infinite loop of creator-->created-->created. Since everything needs a creator, it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression. The beginning had to be a self existent being with no creator.
Who says everything has to have a creator... besides you that is? How is "logically impossible" for a your "god" to have a creator? Granted, I think your "god" was created by primitive people in the bronze age, but why does it have to stop with your "god"? If you believe natural features in plant & animals are too intricate to have evolved then your "god" would have to be the most intricate thing of all, right? According to you you can't get something from nothing, right?
The scientific evidence is everywhere, Every fact of science upholds the Bible as actual history. You can't see it because of your committment to preserve your sin. The day will come for you maggot, and I will be the one to use your eyeballs like bowling ball holes.
Really? So I suppose you have falsifiable evidence to support the Flood, Noah's Ark, Adam & Eve and all the other nonsense in the bible, right? Oh no! Don't bowl with my head! Oh, the horror! LMAO. I appreciate the laughs though.
@maggotballs existence from nothing with no mechanism to do it. Creation is everything coming into existence from pure energy, with the transformation being done by someone smart enough to know how to control the behavior of energy and matter. I could spend days talking about how evolution violates accepted laws of physics, but it would fall on dead and deaf ears. As for empty threats, the Bible says it is the Christians who execute the judgment on the wicked., Psalms 149.
Yeah, bible also says donkeys talk so I hardly think it's good source material. It's an empty threat from an empty head so don't bother. Though, I have to admire the outright arrogance of your certainty. Isn't pride like that considered a sin?
@maggotballs Parrots talk, as do some dogs. Animals are able to communicate. Guess you never read Readers Digest. The depth of your darkness is astounding. Can't read, can't comprehend what is written, no cultural background whatsoever. Your death will cause the average intelligence of the world to rise significantly
Your wilful ignorance is the sin. Knowing God in certitude is not..
Yeah, donkeys, on the other hand, do not possess the brain capacity for cognitive speech and I highly doubt their vocal chords are developed enough for actual speech either. Donkeys can communicate like most animals, but they can't talk. By the way, Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule were fake. LOL! If it wasn't in the bible you would never defend such a ridiculous claim. Claiming to know anything in absolute certitude is arrogant.
@maggotballs I have requested you. It will be an honor, the Bible says. Repent, maggot, or I will personally "chuck" your "head" in the furnace. The last laugh will be mine.
You might better check the accuracy of half life dating. Something is wrong here. Fossilised fragments dated at millions of years were from a 1860's style hat in Tennnessee. Made a fossil by CONDITIONS not time. Conditions control cause things to become fossils. Not time. The moon Io should have cooled billions of years ago. It hasn't. The moon i moving away from the earth. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old it should flood twice a day. We all know it can only be flooded once a day.
so these things are true only if all river deltas were formed at the beginning of the earth as stated and as such no new rivers were formed. Furthermore, his model leaves out any room for plate tectonics given the lack of time scale. Furthermore, he contends that all existing comets were present from the beginning and that there is no process for forming new comets. He has only conjectured about the age of rivers and comets, not the age of the universe of earth, which have differing ages.
Science is based upon what can be observed. The growth rate of deltas is such. You can't get your mind around it because you are blinded by an a priori belief in great ages. Without that unproven presupposition, observing the growth of deltas would argue for a young earth. Why are there NO deltas older than 7,000 years. Was the earth without any rivers for 4.6 billion years and then suddenly 7,000 years ago they were all suddenly formed? That takes more faith than I can muster.
We have measured the siltation rates of the rivers. We know on average how much dirt is carried out to sea every day. The estimation of their age is a mathematical application of what we already know.
Sometimes the land shifts, and the sea level changes. All of those things leave physical evidence behind. Look up sea mounts - wave flattened extinct volcanoes that are 300 feet below the current sea level. Canyons eroded into the continental shelf down to 1500 feet below current level.
Both of these point to the fact that the level of the ocean was at one time MUCH lower. Guess what would explain a 1500 foot rise in ocean level? Want a hint? All of the things I spoke about are apparent because of physical evidence that can not be accomodated in the uniformitarian geological model. The age of the deltas, if you want to hypothesize that the rivers moved, or that the land masses moved, that would leave physical evidence. None such exists. Even dried up rivers leave evidence
What is preventing you from being convinced is an a priori committment to the opposite. In other words, your belief in the old age of the universe precludes you from accepting the physical evidence (and there is an abundance of it - I learn about more each week). For you the belief is of much greater importance than the truth, consequently no evidence would suffice to convince you. That is typical of someone who is using science to excuse their refusal to reconcile with the creator.
I have not cited any "imaginary" evidence. That is what you do. Everything I share is visible and physical evidence, not some imaginary scenario of one species morphing into another (not visible, no physical evidence). What physical evidence indicates the earth is very old? Produce.
You are accusing me of what you are guilty of: I have no preconceived idea, I have no sacred book to tell me how I must bend science to make it fit with this sacred book. My evidence for an old eath? Plenty of it: Several radiometric dating methods which converge, and don't lecture me about the unliability of radiometric dating. Geology. Archeology. Paleontology. Distant starlight. DNA Ice layering. Lunar retreat Slow formation of volcanoes ................ (it's not exhaustive).
Yes, there has been a variation of sea level, bit it has absolutely nothing to see with a biblical global flood.
Long ago all the continents were united in an united one called pangea; then later the pangea separated and the continents we now know were formed; these continents continuously slowly drift.
Sorry, you'll never convince me the eath is young: You have so little biased evidence compared with the very solid evidence that the earth is very old.
nothing to do? Where did the 1500 feet of water come from, brainiac?
pangea? again with your imagination. There is no evidence of this existing, except in your fertile imagination. You state as fact things that were never observed. slowly drift? where is the evidence for this? Everything you cite depends upon fantastic stories that have left no physical evidence behind. On the day of judgement, I will look forward to discussing science with you as I drag you to the lake of fire.
What covers 98% of the world's surface, both on land and sea? Sedimentary rock. How is sedimentary rock laid down? by flood. Which is closer to the visible, to understand that at one time the earth was covered by water, or that continents have been bobbing up and down for billions of years (none of which have ever been observed)
What is another constant of geology all around the world? Gravel. It is everwhere. How is gravel formed? By being tumbled in high speed water.
There are gravel deposits several miles deep covering tens of thousands of square miles in central US and Canada. Which is closer to the visible - that a world wide flood tumbled gravels for 400 days, or that rivers deposited hundreds of thousands of cubic miles without leaving any evidence of their existence (like old river beds).
Only a moron or someone too stupid to think would believe in stories that have no physical evidence rather than the actual existing evidence.
There is no global flood, and there is no lake of fire, there is just your imagination running, interpreting facts the way that fits your biblical belief.
There's evidence the continents drift, and there's evidence for the existence of a pangea.
There is absolutely no evidence for a young earth.
All of geology supports the flood. As for the lake of fire, the bible says that when Jesus returns, the mount of olives will split in half north to south and move apart from each other. About 22 years ago, scientists announced they had discovered a north to south fault that ran smack through the mount of olives. Jesus knew that 2000 years ago.
continental drift - no evidence. pangea, again just a story made up by new agers to flesh out their imaginary history of man.
What evidence do you think there is? Has anyone seen a continent drifting by in the last 6000 years? Ever been to pangea? Was it ever mentioned - ever - in any of the histories that have been written pretty much continually since culture began 6,000 years ago. Oh, by the way, there is no history of man older than 6,000 years. Why is that? If we have been around for 100,000, why no trace of it anywhere?
Young earth evidence? Plenty - Carbon 14 for one. it proves a young earth.
What evidence. All that I have been presented with required that I believe that it happened long ago and far away. What physical evidence shows slow drift of continents? And better still, what would be the mechanism? What generated sufficient energy to cause trillions of cubic miles of rock to move tens of thousands of miles away?
Most radiometric dating is fatally flawed. The carbon 14 method shows the earth is young. Since C14 has a half life of 5723 years, the very presence if C14
in coal oil and gas is an impossiblity if the earth is very old. Instead, there is a lot of C14 in coal. Sometimes ten times the smallest detectable amount. That is not a fantasy, that is science. After only 33,000 years, there would not be any native C14 left in an artifact. Let alone if coal is really 240-260 million years ago. But there it is, popping up in coal oil and gas all over the place. C14 in coal that the coal is less than 10,000 years. Since coal is laid down by flood...
full of energy? where is it? The earth I see appears to be very cool.
center of earh is still very hot - You know this how? you went there?
transfers of energy - again how do you know this? This is just one of those stories you believe.
Again you are trying to state as fact things that are beyond our ability to know. You entire damnation will have been built by one unbeleivable story after another.
You mind is undisiplined, accepting things that are not fact.
Again, i can tell you are not a scientist. If you would bother to read some of the technical papers on RM dating, you would find there are massive discrepancies, and there is no convergence on dates. The dates most often vary by thousands of percentage points. In the end, the people paying for the worthless "science" wind up choosing the date that best fits with their presuppositions. They pick a date that confirms what they already beleived to be true. Not science.
You are giving yourself this denomination, but in fact you are nothing else but a biblical looney who delusively tries to use science to convince himself his fantasies are true.
I am a university trained scientist with a BS from Penn State University. As a science major, I studied the scientific method, and practiced it in my profession, which took me to my highest position as President/CEO of a consulting corporation. I retired last year to spend all of my time working for the implementation of the Kingdom of God.
Deluded? No, that word can only mean someone who is prevented from seeing the obvious. As a scientist, I can evaluate arguments and easily see
if the argument is based on scientific fact (existing physical evidence) or based upon someone's imagination. I call it the sniff test. If it smells like crap, it is crap.
I have examined evidence from every scientific discipline, and have found that in every discipline there is abundance of sound logic based upon existing physical evidence in favor of Creation. There is none for evolution. The only thing I see is imagination about something unobserved happening long ago. Not science
What a moron you are. Being objective REQUIIRES a scientist to take into account information from every source. The very meaning of the word objective is that one is not predisposed to a point of view. You on the otherhand, as all of the other "scientists" reject a priori anything having to do with God. That is the very definition of being non-objective. When you exclude something from your science simply because you think God is a myth, you are the deluded one. Earth=young
Then you can not claim to be objective. Your criteria for understanding starts out with defining out of existence the greated tool for scientists. You must not read much in the way of archeology. Almost all archeologists in the mid east rely on the Bible to be an accurate source. Literally hundreds of discoveries over the last 30 years can be attributed to the Bible. Even atheist Jewish archeologists rely on the Bible to help locate digs. Are you illiterate?
If the Bible is trustworthy to be able to direct archeologists in their search for ancient history, why then should it not be trusted as a chronology, expecially since the physical evidence on the earth can only be explained by a universal flood. Your refusal to use the Bible, while you see it as enlightened, is really bigotted. Any criminal detective who would refuse to look at all the evidence, and rule out any evidence because he just doesn't believe it, would be fired. period
On the day of judgment, your greatest crime will be arrogance against the God of creation. What God has made, He also made it to be abundantly visible and clear. All of the things that I cite are able to be seen, and eas
idiots
TheGhostOfPainsey 1 day ago
@jknengr One last thing. Many years ago I was an evolutionist trying to reconcile the Bible to what I had been taught as a scientist. That is until one day, I was taken in the spirit into outer space, and I watched a replay of the creation of the solar system with my own eyes.
Having seen it with my own eyes, I then began to find that the science supported what I saw. I have not seen anything since then (1976) that even remotely hints at the fantasy of evolution or long age for the earth.
BroCope 2 days ago
@jknengr Also, do you REALLY think you had a trained scientific mind at 6 years of age? REALLY? REALLY NOW?
Would it surprise you that the story of the flood is almost universally present in the traditions of every people group on the planet? World wide, every culture has the flood in their traditions. Even the most remote, like the pygmys in Australia. Why do you suppose that is? Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. There was a universal flood.
BroCope 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jknengr Ge 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Notice the word "daughters". Cain married one of his sisters. In case you didn't notice, it was daughters in the plural, not the singular. Normally I wouldn't point this out, but it is apparent that:
(1) Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, or
(2) You haven't actually read the Bible, thus making you ignorant of the thing you are asserting.
BroCope 2 days ago
Comment removed
BroCope 2 days ago
The T-rex soft tissue in the bone sample discovered by Dr. Mary Shweitzer is evidence enough that dinosuars didn't live millions of years ago. This is a spanner in the evolution machine. Therefore humans co-existed with dinosaurs a couple of thousand years ago. Evolution is a lie, the biggest lie in human history.
MrPieter1978 1 week ago
@MrPieter1978 Actually read the damn paper if you can. It is fossilized soft tissue and more complicated than you think. Creationists have bastardized and quote mined this work to serve their purpose persuading the ignorant. It is Not "soft tissue". An education in basic biology would cure you of your ignorance.
jknengr796 2 days ago
@MrPieter1978 evolution is a lie? well can you please tell me why viruses are evolving and scientists need new medicines to combat viruses?
TheGhostOfPainsey 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This, friends, is why cousins shouldn't reproduce.
odinata 4 months ago
Oh dear, the mistakes of facts and logic in the first few minutes.You really can't argue with such misinformation because to do so you would have to provide a comprehensive remedial education and it would be equivalent to trying to teach someone a foreign language in five minutes.
I was dismayed at the level of abuse in the comments though. Rationalists don't improve their case by ad hominem attacks.
cnocspeireag 7 months ago
according to the math, if you had any amount of carbon 14, it will never decay to no carbon 14. this is not true ofc but it would not take 3000 years for c14 to decay.
jony1710 8 months ago
There are 20 different kinds of radiometric dating. They all cross chenk each other.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before it was invented.
Diamonds have C14, so what?
They soked the 70 million year old fossils in strong acid for weeks to get ''soft tissue''. So what? The fossil is still 70 million years old. That did not change.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They did not find any.
They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see. They knew the earth was Millions of years old before radiometric dating showed it was Billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@AkiThePirate I'm sorry, that was meant for BroCope. Allow me to delete that comment and repost it addressed to him/her.
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
@AkiThePirate The Cambrian Age layers contain small marine creatures, that is all that had evolved 520,000,000 years ago.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Yes lets do the math how long did it take to form the grand canyon??
The canyon was created by the action of the Colorado River over about 6 million years of erosion. Nearly two billion years of the Earth's history have been exposed as the Colorado River and its tributaries cut their channels through layer after layer of rock while the Colorado Plateau was uplifted.
RachaeLeNoire 1 year ago
@RachaeLeNoire Sorry Rachael, you don't know what you are talking about. I'vwe read lots of articles on the GC, and every thing you asserted is wrong. It was gouged out over about a week. All indications of age show that the top layers of the sediments are the same age as the bottom. For example: the desert varnish is the same thickness at the top as at the bottom, indicating same age. There is much more, but hold onto your fantasy. Hell is not yet full.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope The Super Group of rocks is below the level layers of the Grand Canyon. They were laid down level, block faulted into mountains [tilted], worn flat, and then the Teapeats Sandstone was laid down over it. Then another 5000 feet of rock was laid down, some wind blown desert sands, some corals. Then the whole area was raised to 8000 feet ASL. Then the canyon was cut, in 2 weeks. How long do you think this took?
Stop looking at the canyon and look at the rocks it exposed.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You stated the proof of flood already. If the layers were laid down over millions of years, they would not be level. Erosion during the intervening years would have eroded the top of each layer so that the intersections would not be level. There would be massive evidence of erosion between the layers. But what do we see? We see layer after layer, level, parallel, and without erosional events at the intersections. This points to flood deposition, not excessive time.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Erosion makes mountains into plains. Level sediments happen in lakes and seas all the time. Erosion leaves a gap in the geologic column, an UNCOMFORMITY.
Sorry but it takes time to erode a mountain down, it took 5 million years to carve the Grand Canyon but billions of years to build up those layers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
I state things that seem to be right. Therefore I'm right.
I cherry pick statements without doing the math myself, therefore my assumptions are correct.
I present evidence on things that only I or a select group have had access, therefore it is a fact. No open review. No credibility. No evidence. Shame on these folk.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Wrong. My sources are all peer reviewed.
BroCope 1 year ago
Geologists went looking for evidence of a global flood over 200 years ago. They found distinct layers of different kinds of rock with different fossil in them. Floods don't do that. They discovered it must have taken millions of years to make what we see.
They don't use Carbon 14 to date fossils [or diamonds] and it only works up to 60,000 years, they date ash layers above and below fossils and date them with other radiometric dating methods. Get your facts straight.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What a numbskull you are. Of course they don't use C14 to date fossils, because the half life is so short. But get this moron. It is the presence of C14 where it can not be if the dating paradigm is true that is the smoking gun proof that the long age chronologies are fantasies. It is not even the only evidence. Over my lifetime I have read dozens of artickles about human artifacts, and even one skeleton, that were brought up out of coal mines. You trust in fairy tales
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope So tell me some place where Carbon14 is ''where it can not be''
Tree ring go back 10,000 years unbroken, explain that. Double rings are easy to see and account for.
Ice cores go back 10X that far.
Funny how they all cross check each other and match.
Count the layers of rock exposed in the Grand Canyon and tell me how they got to 8000 feet ASL.
Geologist knew the earth was millions of years old before nuclear scientists told them it was billions of years old.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Why is it that all the evidence I've ever seen for a young Earth is just bashing science, and not presenting any positive evidence?
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
@AkiThePirate Are you for real. Every thing I stated in my presentation was evidence for a young earth. The evidence is enough to destroy the fantasy you believe in
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope ''The evidence''....... What evidence?
Geology proves the earth is old.
Astronomy proves the universe is old.
Paleontology proves the fossils are old.
Dinosaures ruled the earth for 160,000,000 YEARS.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope For Niagra falls, you assume a constant rate, which you'd almost certainly say is wrong if done with radioactive dating.
Comets: You clearly don't understand anything about the Oort cloud, not even knowing where it's meant to be, let alone anything about the mechanics allowing for both its existence and the injection of comets.
Carbon 14 can arrive in areas through other means, and I'd love you to go right ahead and show your sources.
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
@AkiThePirate Even if the rate fluctuates, it would have to be near zero for most of the time it is supposed to been in existence. The rate of 5 feet/yr is an average based upon the time we have observed the falls. Besides all of evolution is based upon uniformitarianism which assume m/l constant rates.
All I understand about the Oort cloud is that in spite of all of our scientific expertise, there is no direct evidence for it's existence. It is all conjecture. You can invent all kinds
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope of mechanics that work for things that don't exist.
As for C14, it is made from Nitrogen 14 by a high energy particle from the sun. When it decays it returns to nitrogen. While C14 can move in/out of natural gas and oil, what is the mechanism for movement into coal that is a mile underground? And please explain to me how it can infiltrate the densest crystal in the universe?
As for my sources, they are too numerous to list. If you had a lick of sense, you could find them also
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Just list one source that is not a creationist site.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Again with the idiot act. How are you going to find truth if you refuse to read the evidence produced by those who reject the fairy tale of evolution?
Here is one good source that undermines the long age chronologies - "Forbidden Archeology" It is written by two Hindus, not creationists, believers in evolution. But the fact is that man is in evidence in the fossil record all the way back to the Cambrian. If man has been around since the very first fossil bearing layer was laid
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope refuse to read the evidence'' All the evidence supports evoulution !! There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies on evolution, with full support from every related life science, including genetics. There has not been a single falsification to refute evolution in 150 years of relentless scrutiny!
It is the backbone of Biology, accepted by all scientists.
There are no man fossils in the Cambrian Period rocks or it would prove evolution wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope Uniformitatianism does not assume constant rates IDiot.
It says the processes of nature are the same today as in the past.
Radioactive decay is the same rate as in the past.
Light travels the same speed as it the past.
Catastrophies happen the same as in the past.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It was the promise of constant rates that enabled the geologic column to be formulated.
As far as the other rates you asserted, you know that they have not changed HOW? There is much evidence to the contrary. The speed of light has been measured for centuries. The experimental value has decreased by over 1800/km/sec.
Light speed and Planck's constant are inversely related, Planck's constant has increased over the same period.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Where do you get your facts? Try reading a science book for the TRUTH. The speed of light is not changing. You don't know what the Geologic column is. ''Planck's constant has increased'' Then it wouldn't be a CONSTANT then would it ?>>>dummy.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The visible universe is estimated at about 46 billion light years across, based on the cosmic light horizon. Yet the universe is only supposed to be about 13–15 billion years old. So, how could distant starlight get here in such a short time in a uniformitarian framework?
Starting from the Bible, there are several potential solutions to the problem.
1.Relativistic time dilation
2.CDK or speed of light decay
3.Cosmological time zone conventions
4.Miraculous intervention
SouthernPreachers 1 year ago
@SouthernPreachers Starting from the Bible ?????
First you would have to prove the bible is correct.
The speed of light does not change.
Science does not use ''Miraculous intervention''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope Part 2:
Your criticism of population dynamics is based on ignorance of both circumstances and external influences.
Contamination of the cambrian layers isn't a surprise, but the reason these layers are named what they are is more to due with a statistical analysis of what is found within them over time. If you've ever studied maths, I'm sure you can see that such a model is pretty compelling in that at this stage we must've arrived at 12 standard deviation significance.
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
This is incorrectly categorized as education.
cmsalvagio 1 year ago 2
It really doesn't matter how manny holes you shoot in any scientific theory, as long as you don't present any proof of zombie jesus being the one and only true god.
cursingyorick 1 year ago
@cursingyorick His resurrection from the dead was that proof
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope yea, like 4 inconsistent stories about an emty tomb proves a ressurection. The evidence for the ressurection of zombie J. is just as good as the evidence for the ressurection of Hitler. ---> Look no body!!!! therefor he must have gotten up and walked away, graverobbers couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.
cursingyorick 1 year ago
@cursingyorick I have seen and touched Him myself. In the Bible 500 saw Him at one time. Down through the ages thousands have seen Him alive. He doesn't appear to you because He despises you.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope "He doesn't appear to you because He despises you."
Ladies and gentelmen we have a prophet, he seem's to know it all.
cursingyorick 1 year ago
The Kuiper belt is real and they have found objects in it. So the Hypothesized Oort Cloud was really the real Kuiper belt. The growth rate figure you gave is even less credible. As anyone with slight knowledge of ecology knows populations grow until they reach a carrying capacity and then level off. We have only exceeded that in the past few thousand years and at a not very constant growth rate.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Obviously not a statisticfian. In order to have only 6 billion after 100,000 years REQUIRES a growth rate of functionally zero. As far as reaching a carrying capacity, the earth's population has been growing for the entire recorded hyistory of mankind. I see no leveling off. Besides, even if that vacuaous assertion were true, and not just a figment of your imagination, the statistical proof is mathematically impregnable. You are a moron.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope A growth rate that has never been as high as it has been over the last few hundred years. Check you figures again bud. The recorded history coinsides with man's technology not man's age. Yes, we were once a bunch of illiterate apes. You are living proof. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 You are a moron, aren't you. The average family size today in the US is 1.7 children. Two hundredm years ago, the average family size was closer to 7. The growth rate has never before been so low, in the history of mankind. Half of Europe, and the USA are below the replacement rate. The growth rate up until the advent of easy birth control has always been above 3 percent. To go from 8 to six billion, with an average growth rate of one-half of one percent (not 3%) - 4000 years
BroCope 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 If mankind were on the earth for 100,000 years, and the growth rate were only one hundredth as large (.05%) statistically there would be 40,962,571,270,090,800,000,000 people on planet earth today. Now before you trot out your stupidity again, this is a mathematical certainty. Don't bring up anything about birth rates. I am talking growth rate, not birth rate. Why don't you calculate the growth rate of 2 to 6 billion given 100,000 years of occupancy. Hint: lots and lots of 0's
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope No dick! You want to ignore everything about birth rates, death rates, famines, droughts, disease and everything ecologists a lot smarter than you (not saying much) have known for centuries. How do things look all the way up your ass?
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 Birth rates death rates can vary, but I am tallking about the growth rate. Growth rate is the average percentage growth over time. It has little to do with birth rates and death rates. It is the total population today divided by the total population last year. Birth rates are usually greater than death rates, except during certain exceptional times (Black plague...). So on average, the population has continued to grow even though death rates are high.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope The twentieth century was the most deadly century in human history, but even so, in my lifetime, I have seen the population of the US go from 200 million to close to twice that. I've seen the population of the world rise by two billion. That is a growth rate of 1% over 40 years. It only takes 4000 years to go from 8 to 6 billion at a growth rate of one-half of one percent. To assert man has been around for 100,000, you are going to have to explain where all the people and bodies are
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope ''explain where all the people and bodies are''
Try looking at the fossil record. 99% of all species that ever lived on the earth are extince, gone, no trilobites, no dinosaurs [except the feathered ones]
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz All the human related fossils would fit in your living room. There aren't that many. The fossil record does not contain the trillions of people that would have lived in that 100,000 years. As for all the other species, extinction is a very good argument for the flood. Keep in mind that 99% of all fossils are laid down in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by deposition of suspended particulates from fast moving water, i.e. a flood. The earth is 98% covered by sediments
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope So therefore, either the history of the earth is a long series of local floods, or there was one gigantic flood. The fact that marine fossils are found at the tops of every mountain range and the fact that mammalian fossils are found in the ocean point to the latter. The fossil record is one of the best proofs of the flood.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope There are not shells on the tops of mountains,
The whole top of the mountain IS a seabed.
The shells lived in clean, shallow, salt water.
Not in fresh water, not in muddy flood water.
And reefs did not grow in just a few months during a flood or get washed there.
Plate Tectonics pushed the sea floor up and made it into mountains.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Sorry, but there are marine fossils at the tops of all mountains. You have no way of knowing, other than your need for it to be true, what the environment was in which they lived. All fossils are buried in mud, dim wit. That is how we get the rocks in the first place.
As for corals, it is only your need for them to have grown slowly in situ that underlies your assertion. They were carried around the globe in the flood.
As for plate tectonics, the problems with that are legion.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope For one, there is no mechanism, no plausible mechanism, to drive it. The dynamics of convection cells are enough to destroy that fantasy. But mostly, there is no energy source to drive the convection cells. A hot core is not sufficient, if indeed it is molten. In order to set up a convection cell, the heat source must be on one side of the cell only. That is not the case in the core. The heat source is central to the plates. Plus cells are formed square. That means that the heat
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope the temperature differential, must be great enough to overcome the viscosity of 7,200 miles of rock which has an estimated viscosity of 10 times that of concrete (it is under great pressure).
What miniscule movement that might be detected is caused by the earth not yet having reached equilibrium since the cataclism of the flood. The earth was torn apart by the flood and is still settling down into stasis. It was only 6,000 years ago, you know.
Learn how to think, dim wit.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope All fossils are buried in mud, dim wit.
NO DUMB SHIT. FOSSILS ARE FOUND IN TAR PITS AND DESERTS TOO. IDiot.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope How many fossils do you need, please let us know.
You can't count people to prove how much time went by, you did not accout for the plauge or different birth rates, ect.
Secimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon came from shallow seas not fast moving water. Fast moving water causes erosion not deposition.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Listen dim wit, the growth rate is a statistical measure of population. It is more or less independent of birth rate and death rate, because the birth rate is almost always greater than the death rate. If it were not so, we would not have 6 billion people on the planet. The growth rate is a representation of how quickly the population grows. Statistical analysis most assuredly can be applied to it.
Sedimentary rock is formed when fast moving water which holds particulate matter
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope There are 3 main groups of rocks, only one is sedimentary.
Read a geology book so you know what you are talking about.
They went looking for evidence of a flood 250 years ago, they still haven't found any.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz What a numb skull. For thousands of years the scientists saw evidence for the flood in the earth. it wasn't until Charles Lyell came up with uniformitarianism that the evidence was interpreted differently.
Uniformitarianism is fading now, as more and more scientists see that the history of the world is better described by catastrophism. How were it dinosaurs wiped out? How were all the species wiped out? The main theory now is a comet at the KT boundary. Uniformitarianism=dead
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope No dip shit. Charles Lyell was the father of Geology.
No one looked at the rocks before he did.
Uniformitarianism says that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.
There were 6 great mass extinctions on the earth!
gregrutz 1 year ago
SLOWS DOWN and the particulate matter falls out. Shallow seas, or still water can not hold any particulate matter, therefore can not form deposits. While it is true that fast moving water erodes, what is more important is what happens when that fast moving water slows down.
As the flood receded from the continents, as the water depth shrank, eventually the flow was very slow. Look at the Great Lakes. Their water level since we came to this continent has continued to fall.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope The north American continent is still draining from the flood. Again consider the age of the Niagara Falls. 35,000 feet divided by 5 feet per year = 7,000 years. Consider the age of the Mississippi River delta - 7,000 years.
And by the way, where is the rock and soil gouged out of the GC? It is nowhere to be found because it was washed clean out to sea by the force of the flow. That is several hundreds of cubic miles of debris that would still be visible if the river formed it.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope ''The north American continent is still draining from the flood''
NO, the water comes from rain, there was no flood.
I am tired of typing , You are too fucking stupid to understand geology !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The environment for N America has not changed significantly in the centuries we have been in the US. But the level continues to drop. Your problem is that the preponderance of the evidence and reason affirm my position, not yours. I will see you on the day of judgment, if you survive the next 6 years. I will ask for the honor of being your judge. How are you with extremely hot environs? Unless you forsake your arrogant and ignorant ways, you are inescapably doomed.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope creatard. Judgment day was suppossed to be in one generation not 2016 years.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope The Coconino Sandstone, the third layer down in the Grand Canyon, is from wind blown, desert sands.
We know this from the fossils in it. There are 44 distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz And how do you know the sand is wind blown? If if contains fossils, it had to have been water borne. Different kinds of rock? No. All sedimentary, except for magmatic layers. The flood involved massive volcanic activity. As for corals, they could have grown there, or they could have been transported there by a massive fast moving body of water.
If the earth is covered by water, with no shores to stop the tides, two massive tidal waves would have circled the earth every day at
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope over 800 miles an hour. Plenty of movement to carry and SORT the different "kinds" of materials to make up the different "kinds" of rock. You are awfully dim witted to be snared by such a faulty analysis.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Wrong, floods don't sort fossils. Mud does not make different kinds of rock. Floods don't make limestone, lava and ash layers. you dim witted creatard.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope How do you know the sand is wind blown? Well, some people, called Geologists, accually study the rocks, not just make up shit to match the bible.
Not all fossils are in water borne rock.
Not all sedimentry rock is from water borne sediments.
Not all kinds of rock are made buy flood mud.
Stop trying to explain everthing with a flood dummy, there was no global flood.
Read a Geology book so you don't sound so stupid.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope It has little to do with birth rates and death rates? You have got to be the dumbest fuck on YT.
The population growth rate is calculated dN/dt = rN or N=N0e^rt. Where r = BIRTH RATE - DEATH RATE!. Are you that fucking ignorant?!?
Population grows exponentially not linearly as the fat fuck claims.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@snakeguy76 That's right dick wad. Regardless of the birth rate or the death rate, the overall population continues to increase over time. Growth rate is measurable and is independent of birth/death rates. And crap-for-brains, if the population grows exponentially as you assert, then my argument concerning the time it takes to go from 8 to six billion is made EVEN STRONGER.
However, I doubt you know what an exponential growth rate is. If growth were exponential, and man was only on
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope the earth for 6000 years, we would be a mile deep in bodies. No, my deluded crap-for-brains miscreant, the growth is not exponential.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope You are too fucking stupid to have any argument with. The growth IS exponetial, but are too much of a retard for me to explain. Read a real book about ecology. Actually try to learn something.
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@BroCope Did you take the mass extinctions into account?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Of course I did. It has been 6000 years since Adam and Eve. My calculations start from the 8 people who came off the ark. By the way, you asserted there were 6 mass extinctions. (1) How do you know this for a fact. I am a scientist. I deal in fact, not fairy tales, so don't even bother to tell me a just-so story. What PHYSICAL evidence supports you wild-*ss mumbo-jumbo
BroCope 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BroCope PHYSICAL evidence >>It is called the fossil record, it is a record of the past.
That is what science is trying to explain, the fossils.
Explain how dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years with your theory.
Explain why there are no dinosaur with the trilobites.
Explain why there are no bunny fossils with the dinosaurs.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope "It has been 6000 years since Adam and Eve". Cain killed Abel, who did he breed with, his mother? Sick Bible Stories...
The "Ark"? Come on, anyone with basic thinking skills can debunk that story. I had that figured out when I was 6 years old and sitting in Sunday School. You are no scientist. "Creation Scientist" maybe.
jknengr796 2 days ago
The Kuiper belt is real and they have found objects in it. So the Hypothesized Oort Cloud was really the real Kuiper belt
snakeguy76 1 year ago
It is hard for me to believe that Bro understands C 14 dating. First off carbon 14 decays via expulsion of a beta particle and becomes nitrogen 14 not carbon 12. Also there is nothing unusual about finding C14 in a diamond. C14 is an isotope of carbon and chemically behaves just like carbon 12. This is why if you are doing calculations with a carbon containing compound you use 12.011 for the mass and not 12. The extra mass accounts for the natural abundance of all the isotopes of that element.
nurglesbliss 2 years ago
@nurglesbliss
wow
for the first time today
reading your post
it seems someone seems to know something
i get tired of reading and listening to all of these guys arguing from a position of ignorance
good work!
wolfman49er 1 year ago
@nurglesbliss What an idiot. The half life of C14 is short - 5273 years. That means that any carbon bearing artifacts, if dated to the carboniferous period - 265 mya, could not contain any C14 whatsoever. The fact that C14 is found in ALL carboniferous deposits is proof that they can not be 265myo. Mathematically impossible. I'm afraid it is you that does not understand C14 dating.
BroCope 1 year ago
No, you can't do Carbon 14 dating on a fossil 68 million years old.
Diamons are formed deep in the earth where it is radioactive.
Population growth can't prove anything, not logical.
There are records older than 6000 years.
Why doesn't he have any evidence, just bashing science and quote mining hindus.
gregrutz 2 years ago 2
@gregrutz The oldest written records are the ancient Egypyian and the Sumerian cultures. They go back to 4000 BC. There are no other written records older. , 6000 years. If we have been around for 100,000 years, where are the cultural records?
BroCope 1 year ago
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized and permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt by the middle of the 6th millennium BC centered predominantly on cereal and animal agriculture. Metal objects replaced prior ones of stone. Tanning of animal skins, pottery and weaving are common. There are indications of seasonal occupation of the Al Fayyum in the 6th millennium BC.
They did not all die in a flood
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The formulators of the timeline you have accepted STARTED OUT with the commitment that the history of the Bible is a myth. The corrected timeline shortens the timeline by at least 2000 years. I'[ve studied this subject also. The exodus of the Jews is written about in the Egyptian writings. There is a ton of websites correcting the bad dating you have swallowed. There is even a website with pictures of the crossing site when the sea was parted. Pictures of Egyptian chariot wheels
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope I guess if you believe in talking snakes you will believe in chariot wheels and human footprints with the dinosaurs too.
The early Egyptians didn't just appear in mass 4000 years ago, it took a civilization to build the pyramids.
gregrutz 1 year ago
If the earth is roughly 6000 years old, how are we able to see the light from stars that are millions of light years away. The speed of light in the vacuum of space cannot exceed approximately 186,000 mps and passing through transparent or translucent objects only serves to slow it down. I'd say that debunks a 6000 year old earth pretty effectively.
maggotballs 2 years ago
The gravitational 'well' that alters the fabric of space/time makes it seem like incoming light has traveled vast distances to reach us. We live in a space/time bubble.
SouthernPreachers 2 years ago
Can you prove that? That sounds like a pretty wild theory. I would figure since the speed of light it at its fastest in space then a gravitational well would only serve to slow it down.
maggotballs 2 years ago
The earth might be trapped in "bubble of space-time" in a "void". According to astrophysicists at Oxford University.
If we were in an unusually sparse area of the universe, then things could look farther away than they really are.
"If we lived in a very large under-density, then the space-time itself wouldn't be accelerating," said researcher Timothy Clifton of Oxford University in England. "It would just be that the observations, if interpreted in the usual way, would look like they were.
SouthernPreachers 2 years ago
@SouthernPreachers
It's an interesting theory but highly unlikely. This seems more like speculation if anything else. Like I said, is there any proof this space-time bubble exists?
maggotballs 2 years ago
Well...I suppose that you believe in dark energy and the Orrt cloud too don't you! But they are both theories at the end of the day...just like evolution. You pick and choose the theories that fit your presuppositional paradigm and lock yourself into a narow minded world view.
Ask youself how much you really know about something as apparently simple as rock layers and stratification mechanisms...you believe in millions of years because that is what you have been taught since birth.
SouthernPreachers 2 years ago
Both the Oort cloud and dark energy are hypothetical so their just another interesting theory at this point much like your space-time bubble. I make my decisions based on logic and logic doesn't not lend itself to a 6000 year old earth. If the earth was actually 6000 years old don't you think the scientific community would acknowledge it? I brought up the speed of light because it's science fact. It doesn't matter if I believe it or not it's still true.
maggotballs 2 years ago
So I guess you are saying that the speed of light has remained constant from the begining or since the begining of time. That the speed of light never changes and cannot be altered by gravity and that our perception of the speed of light relative to our place in the cosmos is entirely accurate and without question...I dispute these claims.
SouthernPreachers 2 years ago
Yes, I do believe the speed of light has remained constant since the beginning. The speed of light does change while passing through transparent or translucent objects or by immense gravity but that only serves to slow it down. Is it without question? No, you can question it all you want but if you're going to say it's wrong you'd should back that up with proof.
maggotballs 2 years ago
The speed of light may not be so constant, according to a study conducted by an international team of researchers.The finding involves what physicists and cosmologists have considered a basic law of nature involving the strength of attraction between electrically charged particles. The threat to the idea of an invariable speed of light comes from measurements of another parameter called the fine structure constant or alpha.
SouthernPreachers 2 years ago
We know it is millions of years by looking at something as apparently simple as rock layers and stratification mechanisms.
More looking shows the earth is 4,566 million years old.
gregrutz 2 years ago
No, we are not in a buble, we are in the normal universe where light only goes so fast.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@maggotballs There is a growing body of evidence to show that the speed of light was many orders of magnitude greater in the past. I guess you spend too much time jacking off and not enough time reading science journals.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
Uh huh.... it doesn't matter how much your body of evidence is growing if it's all bogus pseudo-science, chucklehead. :)
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs pseudo science? Like asserting that nothing created everything? That the direction of evolution goes against most of our accepted laws of physics? Like asserting that life arose out of non life without any plausible means? You, my brain dead fool are the one believing in fairy tales. And in the end, just before I throw you into the lake of fire, you will admit it. Bugt it won't save you. Your time is now to make peace withj God. Then will be too late.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
Yep. Pseudo-science. I'm not arrogant enough to say I know where everything came from but it couldn't stop with "god", right? After all, you can't get something from nothing, right? How does evolution violate the laws of physics and are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis? At least my "fairly tales" are falsifiable. Spare me the empty threats, chucklehead.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Creation is not something from nothing, idiot. We humans know how to transform mass into energy, and to a lesser extent energy into mass. Creation is God, very very smart, changing energy into mass, and then doing things with what He created. Creation is in agreement with all of the laws of physics. The big bang is not. It is everything coming out of nothing with no plausible mechanism to do it. Same goes for abiogenesis. What you assert happened is information coming into
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
I was talking about your "god" you dolt. Your "god" is something that came from nothing unless you believe something created him as well. The fact is if you believe "god" did all this then you'd need scientific evidence of a "god" or "gods" for that matter. Just because all the questions about the universe haven't been answered doesn't mean "god did it". Stop clinging to the "god of gaps" nonsense.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs You continue in your ignorance. Philosophically, all things that came into existence had to have a creator, but the original first cause had to have been always existing, not coming into existence all by itself. If the creator was also created, then the problem devolves into an infinite loop of creator-->created-->created. Since everything needs a creator, it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression. The beginning had to be a self existent being with no creator.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
Who says everything has to have a creator... besides you that is? How is "logically impossible" for a your "god" to have a creator? Granted, I think your "god" was created by primitive people in the bronze age, but why does it have to stop with your "god"? If you believe natural features in plant & animals are too intricate to have evolved then your "god" would have to be the most intricate thing of all, right? According to you you can't get something from nothing, right?
maggotballs 1 year ago
The scientific evidence is everywhere, Every fact of science upholds the Bible as actual history. You can't see it because of your committment to preserve your sin. The day will come for you maggot, and I will be the one to use your eyeballs like bowling ball holes.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope Does the bible say there was a global flood 4400 years ago???
Then it is wrong.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@BroCope
Really? So I suppose you have falsifiable evidence to support the Flood, Noah's Ark, Adam & Eve and all the other nonsense in the bible, right? Oh no! Don't bowl with my head! Oh, the horror! LMAO. I appreciate the laughs though.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs existence from nothing with no mechanism to do it. Creation is everything coming into existence from pure energy, with the transformation being done by someone smart enough to know how to control the behavior of energy and matter. I could spend days talking about how evolution violates accepted laws of physics, but it would fall on dead and deaf ears. As for empty threats, the Bible says it is the Christians who execute the judgment on the wicked., Psalms 149.
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
Yeah, bible also says donkeys talk so I hardly think it's good source material. It's an empty threat from an empty head so don't bother. Though, I have to admire the outright arrogance of your certainty. Isn't pride like that considered a sin?
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs Parrots talk, as do some dogs. Animals are able to communicate. Guess you never read Readers Digest. The depth of your darkness is astounding. Can't read, can't comprehend what is written, no cultural background whatsoever. Your death will cause the average intelligence of the world to rise significantly
Your wilful ignorance is the sin. Knowing God in certitude is not..
BroCope 1 year ago
@BroCope
Yeah, donkeys, on the other hand, do not possess the brain capacity for cognitive speech and I highly doubt their vocal chords are developed enough for actual speech either. Donkeys can communicate like most animals, but they can't talk. By the way, Mr. Ed and Francis the Talking Mule were fake. LOL! If it wasn't in the bible you would never defend such a ridiculous claim. Claiming to know anything in absolute certitude is arrogant.
maggotballs 1 year ago
@maggotballs I have requested you. It will be an honor, the Bible says. Repent, maggot, or I will personally "chuck" your "head" in the furnace. The last laugh will be mine.
BroCope 1 year ago
You might better check the accuracy of half life dating. Something is wrong here. Fossilised fragments dated at millions of years were from a 1860's style hat in Tennnessee. Made a fossil by CONDITIONS not time. Conditions control cause things to become fossils. Not time. The moon Io should have cooled billions of years ago. It hasn't. The moon i moving away from the earth. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old it should flood twice a day. We all know it can only be flooded once a day.
farrier616 2 years ago
lol and the earth is flat
moontrue 2 years ago
You are right, the earth is young: Only 4.5 billion years old, a real baby!
hunchbacked 2 years ago
so these things are true only if all river deltas were formed at the beginning of the earth as stated and as such no new rivers were formed. Furthermore, his model leaves out any room for plate tectonics given the lack of time scale. Furthermore, he contends that all existing comets were present from the beginning and that there is no process for forming new comets. He has only conjectured about the age of rivers and comets, not the age of the universe of earth, which have differing ages.
wolfman49er 2 years ago
Science is based upon what can be observed. The growth rate of deltas is such. You can't get your mind around it because you are blinded by an a priori belief in great ages. Without that unproven presupposition, observing the growth of deltas would argue for a young earth. Why are there NO deltas older than 7,000 years. Was the earth without any rivers for 4.6 billion years and then suddenly 7,000 years ago they were all suddenly formed? That takes more faith than I can muster.
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
What tells you that the deltas are no more than 7000 years old?
Furthermore, there have been shifts of the land, and modification of the level of the sea.
There are parts of land which once were connected and which are now separated by the sea.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
We have measured the siltation rates of the rivers. We know on average how much dirt is carried out to sea every day. The estimation of their age is a mathematical application of what we already know.
Sometimes the land shifts, and the sea level changes. All of those things leave physical evidence behind. Look up sea mounts - wave flattened extinct volcanoes that are 300 feet below the current sea level. Canyons eroded into the continental shelf down to 1500 feet below current level.
BroCope 2 years ago
Both of these point to the fact that the level of the ocean was at one time MUCH lower. Guess what would explain a 1500 foot rise in ocean level? Want a hint? All of the things I spoke about are apparent because of physical evidence that can not be accomodated in the uniformitarian geological model. The age of the deltas, if you want to hypothesize that the rivers moved, or that the land masses moved, that would leave physical evidence. None such exists. Even dried up rivers leave evidence
BroCope 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
I answered your questions
BroCope 2 years ago
You think you did, but in my opinion you didn't.
I'm not convinced by your explanations.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
What is preventing you from being convinced is an a priori committment to the opposite. In other words, your belief in the old age of the universe precludes you from accepting the physical evidence (and there is an abundance of it - I learn about more each week). For you the belief is of much greater importance than the truth, consequently no evidence would suffice to convince you. That is typical of someone who is using science to excuse their refusal to reconcile with the creator.
BroCope 2 years ago
The real physical evidence tells me the earth if very old.
Your fantasy imaginary physical evidence proves nothing, and the bible verses still less.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
I have not cited any "imaginary" evidence. That is what you do. Everything I share is visible and physical evidence, not some imaginary scenario of one species morphing into another (not visible, no physical evidence). What physical evidence indicates the earth is very old? Produce.
BroCope 2 years ago
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Yes, there has been a variation of sea level, bit it has absolutely nothing to see with a biblical global flood.
Long ago all the continents were united in an united one called pangea; then later the pangea separated and the continents we now know were formed; these continents continuously slowly drift.
Sorry, you'll never convince me the eath is young: You have so little biased evidence compared with the very solid evidence that the earth is very old.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
nothing to do? Where did the 1500 feet of water come from, brainiac?
pangea? again with your imagination. There is no evidence of this existing, except in your fertile imagination. You state as fact things that were never observed. slowly drift? where is the evidence for this? Everything you cite depends upon fantastic stories that have left no physical evidence behind. On the day of judgement, I will look forward to discussing science with you as I drag you to the lake of fire.
BroCope 2 years ago
By the way, change your name to hunchbrained. It fits better.
BroCope 2 years ago
I think that it's you who state as facts things you interpret your way.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
What covers 98% of the world's surface, both on land and sea? Sedimentary rock. How is sedimentary rock laid down? by flood. Which is closer to the visible, to understand that at one time the earth was covered by water, or that continents have been bobbing up and down for billions of years (none of which have ever been observed)
What is another constant of geology all around the world? Gravel. It is everwhere. How is gravel formed? By being tumbled in high speed water.
BroCope 2 years ago
There are gravel deposits several miles deep covering tens of thousands of square miles in central US and Canada. Which is closer to the visible - that a world wide flood tumbled gravels for 400 days, or that rivers deposited hundreds of thousands of cubic miles without leaving any evidence of their existence (like old river beds).
Only a moron or someone too stupid to think would believe in stories that have no physical evidence rather than the actual existing evidence.
BroCope 2 years ago
There is no global flood, and there is no lake of fire, there is just your imagination running, interpreting facts the way that fits your biblical belief.
There's evidence the continents drift, and there's evidence for the existence of a pangea.
There is absolutely no evidence for a young earth.
Wait for a day of judgment which will never come.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
All of geology supports the flood. As for the lake of fire, the bible says that when Jesus returns, the mount of olives will split in half north to south and move apart from each other. About 22 years ago, scientists announced they had discovered a north to south fault that ran smack through the mount of olives. Jesus knew that 2000 years ago.
continental drift - no evidence. pangea, again just a story made up by new agers to flesh out their imaginary history of man.
BroCope 2 years ago
What evidence do you think there is? Has anyone seen a continent drifting by in the last 6000 years? Ever been to pangea? Was it ever mentioned - ever - in any of the histories that have been written pretty much continually since culture began 6,000 years ago. Oh, by the way, there is no history of man older than 6,000 years. Why is that? If we have been around for 100,000, why no trace of it anywhere?
Young earth evidence? Plenty - Carbon 14 for one. it proves a young earth.
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
Yes, there is evidence for the drift of cotinents, and no, radiometric dating diesn't prove a young earth, much to the contrary.
Keep believing in your biblical fabtasies!
hunchbacked 2 years ago
What evidence. All that I have been presented with required that I believe that it happened long ago and far away. What physical evidence shows slow drift of continents? And better still, what would be the mechanism? What generated sufficient energy to cause trillions of cubic miles of rock to move tens of thousands of miles away?
Most radiometric dating is fatally flawed. The carbon 14 method shows the earth is young. Since C14 has a half life of 5723 years, the very presence if C14
BroCope 2 years ago
in coal oil and gas is an impossiblity if the earth is very old. Instead, there is a lot of C14 in coal. Sometimes ten times the smallest detectable amount. That is not a fantasy, that is science. After only 33,000 years, there would not be any native C14 left in an artifact. Let alone if coal is really 240-260 million years ago. But there it is, popping up in coal oil and gas all over the place. C14 in coal that the coal is less than 10,000 years. Since coal is laid down by flood...
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
What generates the energy for the drift of continents?
The earth is a planet which contains full of energy.
It is constituted of several layers.
The center of the earth is still very hot.
There are transfers of energy between hot parts and cold parts.
And radiometric dating is reliable, and several different methods of radiometric dating give results which converge.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
full of energy? where is it? The earth I see appears to be very cool.
center of earh is still very hot - You know this how? you went there?
transfers of energy - again how do you know this? This is just one of those stories you believe.
Again you are trying to state as fact things that are beyond our ability to know. You entire damnation will have been built by one unbeleivable story after another.
You mind is undisiplined, accepting things that are not fact.
BroCope 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
Again, i can tell you are not a scientist. If you would bother to read some of the technical papers on RM dating, you would find there are massive discrepancies, and there is no convergence on dates. The dates most often vary by thousands of percentage points. In the end, the people paying for the worthless "science" wind up choosing the date that best fits with their presuppositions. They pick a date that confirms what they already beleived to be true. Not science.
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
Because you think that you are a scientist, you?
You are giving yourself this denomination, but in fact you are nothing else but a biblical looney who delusively tries to use science to convince himself his fantasies are true.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
I am a university trained scientist with a BS from Penn State University. As a science major, I studied the scientific method, and practiced it in my profession, which took me to my highest position as President/CEO of a consulting corporation. I retired last year to spend all of my time working for the implementation of the Kingdom of God.
Deluded? No, that word can only mean someone who is prevented from seeing the obvious. As a scientist, I can evaluate arguments and easily see
BroCope 2 years ago
if the argument is based on scientific fact (existing physical evidence) or based upon someone's imagination. I call it the sniff test. If it smells like crap, it is crap.
I have examined evidence from every scientific discipline, and have found that in every discipline there is abundance of sound logic based upon existing physical evidence in favor of Creation. There is none for evolution. The only thing I see is imagination about something unobserved happening long ago. Not science
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
Being a scientist and deluded is not incompatible.
I think that the way you are making science if biased by your biblical beliefs.
You cannot make objective science when you let religion influence your judgments.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
What a moron you are. Being objective REQUIIRES a scientist to take into account information from every source. The very meaning of the word objective is that one is not predisposed to a point of view. You on the otherhand, as all of the other "scientists" reject a priori anything having to do with God. That is the very definition of being non-objective. When you exclude something from your science simply because you think God is a myth, you are the deluded one. Earth=young
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
I don(t acknowledge the bible as a valid source of information for making science.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
Then you can not claim to be objective. Your criteria for understanding starts out with defining out of existence the greated tool for scientists. You must not read much in the way of archeology. Almost all archeologists in the mid east rely on the Bible to be an accurate source. Literally hundreds of discoveries over the last 30 years can be attributed to the Bible. Even atheist Jewish archeologists rely on the Bible to help locate digs. Are you illiterate?
BroCope 2 years ago
@BroCope
At least I think that the bible is not ar argument for the age of the earth.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
@hunchbacked
If the Bible is trustworthy to be able to direct archeologists in their search for ancient history, why then should it not be trusted as a chronology, expecially since the physical evidence on the earth can only be explained by a universal flood. Your refusal to use the Bible, while you see it as enlightened, is really bigotted. Any criminal detective who would refuse to look at all the evidence, and rule out any evidence because he just doesn't believe it, would be fired. period
BroCope 2 years ago
On the day of judgment, your greatest crime will be arrogance against the God of creation. What God has made, He also made it to be abundantly visible and clear. All of the things that I cite are able to be seen, and eas