@gr8vibes2 No, I emphasized the words you seemed to equate (DOWN an INTO). If you'll note, I'm quoting what was written as text in the video. That's why I emphasized the words I did, and tried to explain it better, outside of the quote. But, you're welcome. :)
@JoeShmuck35 Either way the DRIVE part is 100% relevant. The words alone were misleading, but when you see them DRIVE into the earth then it becomes clear.
@PetercAW In case that wasn't clear, while Po-210 and Rn-222 aren't distinguishable in biotite, they are distinguishable in fluorite. Thus the hypothesis that Po halos are really Rn halos can't explain the Po halos in fluorite, and therefore doesn't hold water.
This is a basic point that is readily available in the scientific literature, as well as in Gentry's book. There is no excuse for one of Gentry's critics to miss this point, except being under the spell of severe bias.
@PetercAW Can you explain why under "Gentry's basic premise" that paper as posted suggests that Po halos might be Rn halos? I brought this and other problems to the attention of the webmaster, as I recall, years ago, and nothing has been fixed.
Dishonesty?
At the very least, those involved in that posting are apparently so determined to buttress their pet theories that they will use false data to make it appear that Gentry's research is discredited, when that isn't the case.
GOD BLESS ROBERT GENTRY, BLESSED ART THOU OH LORD OUR GOD KING OF THE UNIVERSE, FOR THOU BRINGETH FORTH THE TRUTH THE K I N G IS C O M I N G, PLEASE GO TO MY CHANNEL GOD WANTS TO BLESS YOU WITH HIS WITNESS,
THE BLOOD OF HIS SON, HE GAVE HIS SON TO DIE FOR YOU, ACCEPT JESUS AS LORD TODAY TO BE SAVED ,REPENT READ KJV BIBLE PLEASE ,PLEASE GO TO MY CHANNEL GOD WANTS TO BLESS YOU NOW
If the Earth was 4.5 boyo,helium in zircon crystal would be non-existent.Scientists have determined that the leakage in the Crystals is around 6,000 yo.This in itself falsifies the evo-atheists belief in billions oy. Also radiometric dating has been proved useless as well,since lead in rocks can not be determined if it is just natural lead or lead produced by radioactive isotopes decay.Another nail in their coffin is,radio active salts can be washed from the rocks by A FLOOD,leaving lead.
@SteJo6sic6 Some have proposed that the speed of light has changed. I don't have an opinion on that.
I think your question above assumes that the earth looks old. To me it does not. It seems to me that the idea that the earth looks old is an opinion based on one's presuppositions, not necessarily on the actual data.
@gregrutz Show me a picture of the results of erosion (i.e. the gullies or valleys or canyons) filled in with new sediment. You can sown me that if it really exists, which it doesn't, since evolution is a farce.
@gregrutz (a) Lack of erosion between layers shows that the layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur. Once the geologic column's time scale is collapsed like that, there is no time for evolution to occur.
Plus, if Cambrian and Jurassic layers were laid down at about the same time, then there really is no justification for evolutionary theory in the fossil record.
(b) By looking. Just look for a valley filled up with sediment.
@gregrutz (a) There is little or no erosion between layers that evolutionists say were laid down 12 and 100+ million years apart. You have yet to explain this.
(b) And those fossils are quite complex and diverse, with no ancestors in the fossil record, as if God created them out of nothing, and the flood buried them .
(d) Creationists explain the fossils as being buried by the Flood.
(e) The Flood explains aspects of the fossils that evolution can't explain.
A, A gap mean there is a gap, there is no way to tell how much was laid down or eroded away. There is no evidence, just millions of years with no record.
B. those fossils were all small marine creatures, no land animals. They all had a mom and a dad, just like today. Like 99% of species, they are all extinct.
C. Floods don't sort fossils. What is the name of the mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?
D. The flood explains what? Look at the fossil record.
(a) During a gap of 12 or 100+ million years, erosion-produced gullies would be filled in by later deposition. Absent these, the alleged gaps are but science fiction.
(b) The fossil record contains no moms and dads, no transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion.
(c) There are Flood models that do result in "sorted" fossils. Read about them.
(d) The Flood, not evolution, explains why some formations contain dino bones but no plants. Think the dinosaurs were starving?
(a) Gaps in layerings are caused by a number of different situations... receding of water levels is an obvious one.
(b) The fossil record contains many ancestors, including the ancestors of humans.
(c) I've never heard one flood model that explains the sorting that we see: hydrologic, "fast vs slow", "bottom feeders on bottom", and density-based models are all violated.
(d) Plants are made mostly have soft tissue. Dinosaurs have bones that fossilize more easily.
(a) There is little or no erosion within the gaps: No ravines, valleys, gullies, ditches. Thus, the assumed gaps of 12 and 100+ million years are science fiction.
(b) The presence of Precambrian fossils is disputed.
(c) Floods did make the fossil record. Even evolutionist geologists agree that catastrophic water events produced parts of the geologic record.
(d) Plants did not evolve over long ages. They were created on Day 3 of creation week about 6000 years ago.
Regarding (c), some deposits around the Grand Canyon are fairly uniform, laid down by water, and covering as much as a million square miles. Some evolutionists have proposed that localized flooding creating some of these, which is really incredible to think about. Localized flooding left behind a deposit covering a million sq. mi.?
(a) Why would the lack of erosion suggest that a long gap never took place? If sediment was being laid down underwater, why would we expect erosion?
(b) Homo habilis, homo georgicus, homo erectus, australopithecus afrikanes...
(c) We find fossils in a certain order in the ground. Whales are ALWAYS above dinosaurs. Flatfish are ALWAYS above pterosaurs. Flowering plants are ALWAYS above trilobites. Evolution explains this... creationism doesn't.
@FiverBeyond (a) So are you proposing that during the alleged 12 and 100+ million-year gaps that no deposition occurred?
I think you really need to think this one through. You can't have it both ways. Either during those alleged 12 and 100+ million years deposition occurred, or erosion occurred. You can't simply have nothing occurring for that length of time unless you propose that common geological processes had simply stopped.
"(a) So are you proposing that no deposition occurred?"
Of course not: but deposition only occurs in certain areas, obviously. Gaps represent a time when no deposition was occurring. There are plenty of modern geologic formations that show this flatness: salt flats, basins, lake beds, etc. If we don't see wild varieties in these locations, why would we expect to see them between the layers?
@FiverBeyond Be specific: Why was no deposition occurring for 12 and 100+ million years in the Grand Canyon area? Was the area underwater or not? Did it rain during that length of time or not? Did the wind blow during that length of time or not?
There was no deposition because that area was not covered by the sea.
The area was not underwater.
It certainly did rain during that time, although rarely (it was a desert then too.)
The wind certainly did blow.
Now... what does this have to do with your suggestion that somehow there is erosion missing? Erosion makes things flat and smooth... violent events make things jagged and edgy. That's how we know the layers weren't formed by a flood.
@FiverBeyond No, erosion does not make things simply flat and smooth. The Grand Canyon itself is evidence of that.
Erosion leaves gullies, ravines, ditches, and valleys. New deposition would fill these in, and they would then be visible when looking at a cross section. You'd have a "fossil" ravine, a ravine filled in with sediment from the new layer on top.
But in those alleged 12 and 100+ million year gaps, there is no such fossil erosion. No erosion = no gap!
@FiverBeyond (b) Your list of alleged species does not address my statement: "Since God made man of the dust of the earth, there are no ancestors of man in the fossil record, unless they be other men."
The species of your list are either misidentified or simply other men, descendants of Adam whom God created from the dust around 6000 years ago.
In other words, if any of those species are indeed human, they are descendants of the first man, not ancestors.
@FiverBeyond The evidence we could discuss depends upon your perspective, where you are coming from. Perhaps the simplest and most conclusive evidence would be to assume that you believe in God and the Bible, and to then say that I have a history book written by someone who personally knew and spoke with the One who was there at Adam's creation..
"The evidence we could discuss depends on your perspective."
Then it's not evidence, is it? Evidence means facts that we can agree on regardless of our presuppositions. In Science, our goal is to limit our assumptions as much as possible.
For example, I'm happy to ask for evidence on this point with no presuppositions at all: I won't assume ANYTHING about the age of the earth.
Now... what is the evidence that ALL hominid fossils are strictly non-human?
Pollen in Cambrian rocks? I assume you're talking about the Hakatai Shale pollen and the work of Clifford Burdick, right? Do you really want me to go into how silly this claim is? Just say yes if you want an answer...
But, since I've answered so many questions, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering two or three of my own?
@FiverBeyond I was thinking of Burdick's work, but now see that creationist Arthur Chadwick has refuted it at origins dot swau dot edu slash papers slash dinos slash pollen slash eng slash index dot html
But Chadwick states that there is angiosperm pollen & vascular tissue in the Saline series of the Salt Range in Punjab, India, conformably under Cambrian deposits.
He also states that the subject of the Salt Range beds is proscribed among Indian and many western paleontologists today. Why?
(d) The fossil record contains lots of plants, and dinosaurs eat a lot. That certain layers contain large amounts of dinosaurs bones without fossil evidence of the plants needed to support those dinosaurs is evidence of a global, catastrophic, flood.
(d) How does the lack of plants support a catastrophic flood? Are you saying that, biblically speaking, there weren't enough plants to support dinosaurs? Or that the plants were mysteriously sifted out of the flood debris, while the bones stayed?
But of course, as I've just pointed out, plants general fossilize much more rarely than bones. This is why we find fewer plant fossils.
But even then, you're wrong: We find plants in EVERY layer. Name one that is plant-less.
@FiverBeyond (d) Large dinosaurs could conceivably survive the inundations that buried the plants, and then were overcome by later inundations when the plants were already buried.
If you want to know more about the deposit(s) that contain lots of dinosaurs with little or no plants to sustain their huge masses, get a copy of David Read's book Dinosaurs.
"(d) Large dinosaurs could conceivable survive..."
Yes, but we're not talking about just large dinosaurs, remember? We're talking about ALL dinosaurs. Besides... if what you said were true, we would find a layer of fossilized plants directly under the layer of fossilized dinosaurs. We don't.
But most importantly, you said that the fossils distinctly support the Creation model.
Again: how does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?
"Again: how does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?"
"I already told you."
No, you didn't... you tried to explain how they could be filtered out from dinosaur bones, which, even if it were true, STILL doesn't support Creationism.
So, one last time: How does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?
If evolution be true, then you wouldn't have just footprints in a lower formation, and just dino bones without adequate plants in higher formations. The large dinos needed lots of food to support their size. It just isn't there.
Noah's flood explains that. Evolution doesn't.
Again, if you want to read more about that, get Read's book "Dinosaurs." He also deals with land dinos buried at sea, another conundrum for evolution.
I am grateful for having watched this interesting video. It does indeed conform to my belief in the Biblical truth. How awesome God, (Father to those who know Him through His Son, Jesus), is. I used to believe the lie - evolution! I praise the Lord for His revelation to the truth and of His saving grace.
@gregrutz It is false that every dating method shows that. Consider the U238/Pb206 ratios in U-238 halos in Triassic and Jurassic coalified wood.
Gentry scientifically falsfied every naturalistic explanation for the Po halos. Read the peer-reviewed articles in the back of his book if you are in doubt.
I suspect that you resist the scientific evidence so much because you feel that your religious beliefs are threatened. Why not simply accept the science?
@gregrutz (a) If the science is not flawed, then the Po halos were made by primordial Po, not U.
(b) There is no excess fossil alpha-recoil tracks near halo centers, showing that there was no diffusion of isotopes through the solid rock to the halo centers.
(c) Coalified wood contained only Po-210 halos, not Po-218 or Po-214 halos. Thus, if these latter halos couldn't form in logs soaking in isotope-bearing solution, then they certainly couldn't form in solid rock.
@gregrutz (a) Irrelevant. While that fact leads one to consider a transport hypothesis, such an hypothesis was falsified long ago due to the absence of fossil alpha-recoil tracks.
(b) I've read the published reports. Have you?
(c) "No one" is false. Any scientist who is open-minded will consider these arguments. The problem is when a scientist holds to a particular world view that is falsified by this scientific evidence.
@gregrutz I have studied the historical, catastrophic flood known as Noah's Flood.
The scientific evidence fits the idea that the layers at the Grand Canyon were laid down during a global flood.
Not sure what you mean by your last question. My point was that there are no fossil canyons in the GC, little or no erosion between layers. If you are asking why that is so, it's because there was no time between layers for erosion to occur.
@PicklePublishing There are many unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Missing layers due to erosion. Why does there have to be erosion between layers? Can't the landscape change and keep laying down sediments?
You say you studied the flood, have you read a geology book or did you listen to bible stories.
@gregrutz (a) If layers representing 12 or 100+ million yrs were missing because of erosion, then there should be valleys and gullies that would have gotten filled with sediment. Since such don't exist, we know that these layers were laid down very rapidly, leaving no time for erosion.
(b) I've read and studied scientific material having a bearing on Noah's Flood.
@gregrutz (a) If it was a low, flat plane, then there was no erosion to cause the missing layers as you proposed. So you're stuck: Either you say there was no erosion because it was flat, or you say that the missing layers eroded away. Catch 22.
(b) So do you believe George Washington is a myth too? Genesis is a history book that says there was a Flood, and a lot of scientific evidence supports that. Yet you emphaticly deny that there was a flood even though you weren't there.
@PicklePublishing When the area was under sea level sediments were laid down. When the land was raised above sea level, nothing was deposited, leaving a gap in the geologic column. IS Geology difficult for you?
b. You have not evidence for a flood, and you forgot to tell the Chinese to all die in a flood.
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized, permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt. They did not die
@gregrutz (a) Raise the land and you will get erosion. But you've changed your story. Before you said that the missing layers eroded away. Now you say that the missing layers were never deposited.
(b) The coalified wood halos are evidence of a recent, global flood. So are also the formations that contain dinosaur bones but little or no plants. Etc., etc.
@PicklePublishing If there is an unconformity, it is a gap in the record, a period were not net deposition happened. You can't tell how much was laid down or how much was worn away, there is no record. The point is, there are no ''erosion marks', erosion leaves a gap.
Plants evolved too. Flowers [seeds] did not show up in the fossil record until late in the dinosaur period.
@gregrutz (a) You're missing the point. There are "gaps" around the Grand Canyon which skeptics claim amount to 12 and 100+ million years. In that length of time there would have been significant erosion, traces of which would be left in the geologic column. No such traces exist.
(b) Scientific evidence shows that plants are no more likely to evolve than animals. Flowers existed before dinosaurs were created. That agrees with the finding of pollen in Precambrian deposits.
Erosion leaves behind ditches, gullies, ravines, valleys, and canyons. After 12 or 100+ million years, the geologic column should contain such, filled in with new sediment. They just aren't there. Therefore, such time gaps never took place.
Are you suggesting that the Grand Canyon contains within the 12 and 100+ million year gaps fossil canyons millions of years old that were later filled in with new sediment, you are simply mistaken..
@PicklePublishing Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon area.
@gregrutz Give me a link to a picture of a canyon or ravine within the 12 or 100+ million-year gaps filled up with sediment. Show me a picture of erosion between the layers described on the video Evidence by the Geoscience Research Institute.
Talking about erosion other than between the specific layers described on that video doesn't alleviate the problem for evolutionists.
@gregrutz Try answering questions already posed to you before you start asking more. Like why are there dinosaur footprints in lower layers without dinosaur bones. And why there is pollen from flowering plants in Precambrian rock.
Skeptics aren't likely to see seed fossils where they think they can't possibly exist. And if they do see them, they will be less inclined to publish their findings than others.
There are exceptions. Evolutionists did report finding red blood cells in dino bones.
@PicklePublishing Just because you don't find fossil bones with the tracks, proves nothing except they didn't find any fossils of bones. There are no tracks before the 'Age of Dinosaurs.
Show you source for pollon in the cambrian.
They did not find red blood cells in dinosaur fossils. Mary said it ''looks like red blood cells'' Blood cells break down in about 2 weeks!
Stop getting your evidence from crationist web sites, THEY LIE !
@gregrutz (a) I never said "proves." But it is evidence of a global flood. Larger dinosaurs made tracks but survived earlier inundations, only to succumb later during the flood event.
(b) Do a Google search for Precambrian pollen and you'll find citations to the published articles.
(c) Is smithsonianmag com a creationist web site? I found a great article on the red blood cells in dino bone there.
(d) And you don't think that skeptics and infidels lie? Aren't you being a bit naive?
@gregrutz Please note: You stated: "Flowers [seeds] did not show up in the fossil record until late in the dinosaur period." I replied, "Flowers existed before dinosaurs were created."
You stated as fact what needs to first be proven. Rather than state that flowers/seeds are first found in certain strata, you said they were first found late in the dinosaur period, as if evolutionary theory is a proven fact. It is not. It has been falsified repeatedly.
@PicklePublishing When was your bible story flood? The Ubaid culture lived in Mesopotamia in 5000BC and the flood didn’t obliterate their civilization.
Apparently the flood didn't reach China either as the Peiligang culture came into existence in 7000BC. This was quite an advanced culture and the Chinese were already accomplished farmers at this early date.
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 Obviously, you must be incorrect, since the world didn't even exist back then. The atmosphere wasn't even created until about 6000 years ago.
I really wish you'd quit begging the question. You will get nowhere pontificating that such and such had to be in 6000 BC when you have done nothing toward proving that that date is valid. I can just pontificate back, and the discussion goes nowhere.
You're not coming across as if you want to open mindedly discuss the issues.
@gregrutz (a) Can't. The earth didn't exist that long ago. Remember?
Plus, Noah's Flood wiped out all plant life just 4350 years ago or so. So you are simply wrong about the date of those tree rings. Read up on your history.
(b) Egypt was known as the Land of Ham. Ham was one of the sons of Noah. Ham wasn't born yet in 4000 BC. Neither was Noah. Again, read up on your history.
@gregrutz Depends on the facts you refer to. Some facts I get from scientific experiments and observations, and some from historical sources, and some from prophetic writings.
@gregrutz Turbidity currents would produce distinct layers.
Have you studied catastrophic floods before?
What dead bodies are you referring to?
By the way, I've read how lower layers contain dinosaur footprints but little or no bones, and higher layers contain dinosaur bones but no plants. That fits a flood model, not an evolutionary model.
@PicklePublishing If the canyon was carved in a week, where did the 21 distinct layers come from. Most but not all, were made under water and raised to 7000 feet.
@gregrutz Ever heard of turbidity currents? They're underwater avalanches. Geologists have identified turbidites in the Grand Canyon sediments.
Put it all together, Greg. What could possibly have laid down all the layers so quickly that there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers, and lay down at least some of the layers during underwater avalanches? Noah's Flood.
@gregrutz (a) You can say there is significant erosion between layers all you want. It doesn't make it true. Send me a picture of huge ruts buried in the canyon's sediments if you can.
(b) I already told you that the Coconino contains footprints formed in submerged sand, not dry sand. Experiments verified this. Have you done experiments to show otherwise?
@gregrutz (a) Do a Google search for footprints & Coconino, and you'll find a number of sites discussing this issue.
(b) Sounds like a uniformitarian assumption to me, the idea that God could not have created limestone in the beginning. Indisputable evidence that a deposit of limestone came from shells would be the finding of shells in it.
Obviously, Precambrian limestone has no shells in it. Thus, the idea that such limestone did not come from shells should be considered by the open-minded.
@gregrutz Your response is inappropriate and disrespectful.
In a global flood, the waters would bring in sediment from different localities at different times and deposit them, leaving different layers having different compositions behind.
Along with the mud one would need to have some cement. Walt Brown's theory, described in this video, explains where the Ca carbonate came from, from the mineralized waters that burst forth from the earth at the time of the Flood.
@gregrutz (a) I never said the oceans got underground. But the water that was under there, God put there when He made the earth.
(b) Flood models I've seen don't need that much water to submerge the whole earth.
(c) Volcanic activity during the flood event provided plenty of ash.
(d) Trilobite fossils are more complex in lower layers, so fossils aren't sorted the way you suggest. Sorting would be due to body mass, tenacity to life, when certain ecological habitats were inundated, etc.
The 4th millennium BC saw major changes in human culture. It marks the beginning of the Bronze Age and of writing.
The city states of Sumer and the kingdom of Egypt are established and grow to prominence. Agriculture spreads widely across Eurasia. World population in the course of the millennium doubles, approximately from 7 to 14 million people.
@ElProximo NO dummy. The BIBLE says everyone died in the flood that wasn't on the Ark. The bible is wrong, there was no global flood that killed everyone.
The Chinese prove it.
The Egyptians prove it is wrong.
Geologist have proven the bible was wrong about a flood.
@gregrutz So how did the Chinese, Egyptians and geologists prove the bible was wrong about a flood? I am curious...and don't call people names, it always turns around on ya...
at 3:25. see the white cliff, the third layer down. It is called the Coconino Sandstone. It was formed from wind blown sand. We know this because of the fossils in it.
He is sitting on limestone, a sea bed made of sea shells.
We would then be forced,,,,,,no we wouldn't error error does not follow.
@gregrutz The science class I took a long, long time ago gave scientific evidence for why the fossil footprints in the Coconino Sandstone had to be made underwater. Footprints in dry sand wouldn't be preserved. In moist sand the sand would stick to the feet of the animal, as I recall. One submerged sand would have a chance preserving footprints.
@PicklePublishing Do you live in the bible belt where they don't teach real science if it does not match the bible? The fossils in the Coconino are from desert plants and animals. Creationists never look at the fossils.
@gregrutz Your comment is inappropriate, as if you don't have any real data to support your points. How would you feel if I asked you, "Do you live in the atheist belt where they don't teach real science if it matches the Bible?"
The class I took was taught by someone who had studied the fossils. But prove him wrong if you can. Conduct experiments to show how fossil tracks can form in dry sand, or moist sand, rather than only submerged sand.
@ElProximo You can prove evolution wrong, just find a bunny fossils buried with the dinosaur fossils. OR find a dinosaur fossils with trilobite fossils.
OR show we are not Apes/monkeys/primates/mammals/ tetrapods.
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed 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!
@ElProximo Let me guess - you are a Christian. It's very telling that the *only* people who have any issue with the Big Bang, age of the Earth, evolution, and a number of other foundations of modern science are Christians.
Really, it would be cool if someone came up with an alternate theory of life (an actual scientific theory), but that doesn't happen.
Instead, we get religious fundies who read a biased website then lose the ability to distinguish between science and magic.
that makes no sence at all their are no facts of this. Just look how long it takes for a river to carve its river bed. or how long it takes a ocean to turn a rock into sand. look how long it takes for a diamond to form.
@blk05gt Man make diamonds. Floods can do great damage and carve rivers. Thousands of years can make sand, erosion is faster than we realise by the ocean.
The earth is billions of years old. If somebody has another opinion, he should write a scientific paper and submit it for peer revue. To appeal to the" voice of the people" to gain credibilty in scientific matters is immature. Darwin stood alone with his theory against the world. He won. Anybody with great ideas can do the same.
@lizazoon Your wish was granted quite some time go. Read peer-reviewed scientific reports at halos . com which show that the earth is but thousands of years old, not billions.
From the home page at halos . com, just click "Reports" in the menu at the left.
@lizazoon I suppose it is possible that some of the physicists that review articles for the journals Science and Nature and such are also Bible scholars. After all, Sir Isaac Newton I think was both a renowned scientist and a Bible scholar.
@PicklePublishing: Newton had a fantasic brain, bordering the insane. He was obssessed with Revelation and spend hours and days looking for bible codes and trying to find the date for Armageddon.and the end of the world. He came up with 2060.
Tigerpawz: who are you to decided what a 'real doctorate' is? Dr. Gentry is a PhD who has several peer reviewed papers which you can check out for yourself. Do you have any peer reviewed papers?
The truth is that you don't like what he says about the age of the earth but he is quite correct.
@Calypsis4@Calypsis4 Actually, as the back of his book states, Bob Gentry has an honorary DSc (Doctor of Science) rather than a PhD. I think he's listed in Whos Who in America as well. Much better, though, is if our names are written along with multitudes of others in the Lambs Book of Life.
@Calypsis4 His peer reviewed papers do fine when Gentry sticks to the facts and just does science research. It's when he brings in the whole "this part of science is wrong because the Bible says so" argument that people laugh uproariously at him.
Let's face it, the Bible is not any kind of science textbook, and basing science on the bible deserves the ridicule it gets.
If he had a problem with science based on *science* and not what the "prophet" Ellen White said, that would be welcomed.
Science has and will continue confirming the truth of Genesis, since Genesis is the truth about our Origins, starting from the Origin of the Universe, most recent discoveries in cosmology has confirmed that the Universe expanded from the size of a marble to its present NOT in 13.7 billions years but the trillion of a trillionth of a second, this very one discovery confirms the very first verse of the Bible...In the begining God "created" the heavens an the earth"
I certainly do believe that God`s creation speaks against evolutionism, but I can not be sure that everything young-earth science says is true and right, since I do not know much about science and as a christian I am not absolutely to trust anything in this world. If God can let Satan`s secret servants change his words in the Bible into insignificant contradictions and add false scriptures to his words, why would he not let Satan tempt people through young earth-science aswell?
I´ll tell, I used to believe in "scientists" and my professors at school, but I did find a couple of Dino-foot-prints as lookins as fesh as last week imprinted, so I moved foward to investigate the whole issue, and I´ve found many and I meant it, indication that this Universe and of course the Solar system and life on planet earth it´s not that old as those impaired mind evolutionists want us to believe.-Just take a look at the Comets and the totally hypotetical Ooort cloud
So, how does non-living matter randomly turn into a living organism? Nobody actually knows what primordial soup is, nobody knows how DNA or protein could possibly form since they are dependent on each-other, and the fact that Amino Acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen makes that idea sound pretty impossible. It also has never, ever been observed. Could you explain your belief to me so that maybe I could understand it.
Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim. Hey, Creationist say the same about evolutionist, it was impossible for it to happen(evolution). You've asked questions now it's my turn.
Where did the universes original matter come from?
How did life begin?
Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?
It is not made up of parables. You are taking these out of context. There are a few parables but the whole New Testament is not a parable. Parables are short simple stories to prove a point.
I believe that Jesus is God's son and that he was sent in our place to die on the cross. I believe the Bible is infallible and I believe jesus was sinless.
There are mistranslations here and there, like adding an S to a word or a minor thing like that. Key word is minor. You have to realize that the original Bible is the perfect one. King James and Tyndale who translated the Bible did a pretty good job. The overall message was not affected by these little. Some parts are parables and others are not.
Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:
Yes, Christ is the only way. Horus, Allah and other gods cannot stand up to the scrutiny that the Christian faith and the Bible have withstood for centuries. There is more reason to believe than to not believe. I found your description of God comical. You call the creator of the universe a megalomaniac...but you, the creation, who cannot create anything deny His existence. Hah! Who is the megalomaniac?
Logically, since all religions contradict each other, there are only two options open to us. Either they are all false or there is only one true religion. If there is one God there will only be one religion. The person who objects is 'too narrow' to accept the truth. God gives us faith to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way. Followers of Christ worship in spirit and in truth. The bible calls for the saved to apply God's word to any given situation.
error found at 6:50: 2,000 ft doesn't equal 6,000 miles
gr8vibes2 4 months ago
@gr8vibes2 "2,000 feet DOWN, 6 miles INTO the Earth"
As you'll note, they are driving INTO the earth. This would mean, driving 6 miles at a decent of 2,000 ft TOTAL.
They didn't drive DOWN 6 miles, they drove 6 miles to end, 2,000 ft. below the surface.
JoeShmuck35 3 months ago in playlist Dinosaurs Lived With Man
@JoeShmuck35 I think you mean to emphasize DRIVING, they are DRIVING (as in a slow angle) on a six mile tunnel angled downward .. thanks
gr8vibes2 3 months ago
@gr8vibes2 No, I emphasized the words you seemed to equate (DOWN an INTO). If you'll note, I'm quoting what was written as text in the video. That's why I emphasized the words I did, and tried to explain it better, outside of the quote. But, you're welcome. :)
JoeShmuck35 3 months ago
@JoeShmuck35 Either way the DRIVE part is 100% relevant. The words alone were misleading, but when you see them DRIVE into the earth then it becomes clear.
gr8vibes2 3 months ago
@gr8vibes2 True. I can understand why you were confused, which is why I commented.
JoeShmuck35 3 months ago
@PetercAW In case that wasn't clear, while Po-210 and Rn-222 aren't distinguishable in biotite, they are distinguishable in fluorite. Thus the hypothesis that Po halos are really Rn halos can't explain the Po halos in fluorite, and therefore doesn't hold water.
This is a basic point that is readily available in the scientific literature, as well as in Gentry's book. There is no excuse for one of Gentry's critics to miss this point, except being under the spell of severe bias.
PicklePublishing 5 months ago
@PetercAW Can you explain why under "Gentry's basic premise" that paper as posted suggests that Po halos might be Rn halos? I brought this and other problems to the attention of the webmaster, as I recall, years ago, and nothing has been fixed.
Dishonesty?
At the very least, those involved in that posting are apparently so determined to buttress their pet theories that they will use false data to make it appear that Gentry's research is discredited, when that isn't the case.
PicklePublishing 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD BLESS ROBERT GENTRY, BLESSED ART THOU OH LORD OUR GOD KING OF THE UNIVERSE, FOR THOU BRINGETH FORTH THE TRUTH THE K I N G IS C O M I N G, PLEASE GO TO MY CHANNEL GOD WANTS TO BLESS YOU WITH HIS WITNESS,
THE BLOOD OF HIS SON, HE GAVE HIS SON TO DIE FOR YOU, ACCEPT JESUS AS LORD TODAY TO BE SAVED ,REPENT READ KJV BIBLE PLEASE ,PLEASE GO TO MY CHANNEL GOD WANTS TO BLESS YOU NOW
hereforthelasttime 10 months ago
I believe these researcher are citing evidence for a young earth, as the title states,not a young universe.
string1248 1 year ago
If the Universe were 6kyo then how can there be light from stars b of lightyears away?
dugudr 1 year ago
@dugudr
the speed of light isn´t a constant. look it up,.. figger it out
waffelybits 6 months ago
@waffelybits Wrong. The speed of light is essentially a constant. Figger it out...
demoskunk 5 months ago
If the Earth was 4.5 boyo,helium in zircon crystal would be non-existent.Scientists have determined that the leakage in the Crystals is around 6,000 yo.This in itself falsifies the evo-atheists belief in billions oy. Also radiometric dating has been proved useless as well,since lead in rocks can not be determined if it is just natural lead or lead produced by radioactive isotopes decay.Another nail in their coffin is,radio active salts can be washed from the rocks by A FLOOD,leaving lead.
CBALLEN 1 year ago
@SteJo6sic6 Some have proposed that the speed of light has changed. I don't have an opinion on that.
I think your question above assumes that the earth looks old. To me it does not. It seems to me that the idea that the earth looks old is an opinion based on one's presuppositions, not necessarily on the actual data.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@gregrutz Show me a picture of the results of erosion (i.e. the gullies or valleys or canyons) filled in with new sediment. You can sown me that if it really exists, which it doesn't, since evolution is a farce.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing You don't know the difference between geology and biology
Erosion has nothing to do with evolution.
How do you see a valley in a cross section of the geologic column??????
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Lack of erosion between layers shows that the layers were laid down so rapidly, there wasn't time for erosion to occur. Once the geologic column's time scale is collapsed like that, there is no time for evolution to occur.
Plus, if Cambrian and Jurassic layers were laid down at about the same time, then there really is no justification for evolutionary theory in the fossil record.
(b) By looking. Just look for a valley filled up with sediment.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Lack of erosion between layers means sediment was being deposited.
The fossils in the Cambrian are small, extinct marine fossils.
The fossils in the Jurassic above that has dinosaur fossils in it, also extinct.
How do you explain the fossils? Creationist always forget about the fossils.
The whole thing is to expain what we find. A flood can't do that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) There is little or no erosion between layers that evolutionists say were laid down 12 and 100+ million years apart. You have yet to explain this.
(b) And those fossils are quite complex and diverse, with no ancestors in the fossil record, as if God created them out of nothing, and the flood buried them .
(d) Creationists explain the fossils as being buried by the Flood.
(e) The Flood explains aspects of the fossils that evolution can't explain.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
A, A gap mean there is a gap, there is no way to tell how much was laid down or eroded away. There is no evidence, just millions of years with no record.
B. those fossils were all small marine creatures, no land animals. They all had a mom and a dad, just like today. Like 99% of species, they are all extinct.
C. Floods don't sort fossils. What is the name of the mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?
D. The flood explains what? Look at the fossil record.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
(a) During a gap of 12 or 100+ million years, erosion-produced gullies would be filled in by later deposition. Absent these, the alleged gaps are but science fiction.
(b) The fossil record contains no moms and dads, no transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian explosion.
(c) There are Flood models that do result in "sorted" fossils. Read about them.
(d) The Flood, not evolution, explains why some formations contain dino bones but no plants. Think the dinosaurs were starving?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
(a) Gaps in layerings are caused by a number of different situations... receding of water levels is an obvious one.
(b) The fossil record contains many ancestors, including the ancestors of humans.
(c) I've never heard one flood model that explains the sorting that we see: hydrologic, "fast vs slow", "bottom feeders on bottom", and density-based models are all violated.
(d) Plants are made mostly have soft tissue. Dinosaurs have bones that fossilize more easily.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
(a) Regardless of the reason for gaps, the absence of erosion between the layers shows that the 12 and 100+ million year gap never took place.
(b) Since God made man of the dust of the earth, there are no ancestors of man in the fossil record, unless they be other men.
(c) Please be more specific. But more importantly, not one evolutionary model explains certain key observations.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
a. there is erosion marks, they are called gaps
b.there are pre-cambrian fossils.
c.floods didn't make the fossil record.
d. plants evolved too.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
(a) There is little or no erosion within the gaps: No ravines, valleys, gullies, ditches. Thus, the assumed gaps of 12 and 100+ million years are science fiction.
(b) The presence of Precambrian fossils is disputed.
(c) Floods did make the fossil record. Even evolutionist geologists agree that catastrophic water events produced parts of the geologic record.
(d) Plants did not evolve over long ages. They were created on Day 3 of creation week about 6000 years ago.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Regarding (c), some deposits around the Grand Canyon are fairly uniform, laid down by water, and covering as much as a million square miles. Some evolutionists have proposed that localized flooding creating some of these, which is really incredible to think about. Localized flooding left behind a deposit covering a million sq. mi.?
Noah's Flood makes a lot more sense.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
(a) Why would the lack of erosion suggest that a long gap never took place? If sediment was being laid down underwater, why would we expect erosion?
(b) Homo habilis, homo georgicus, homo erectus, australopithecus afrikanes...
(c) We find fossils in a certain order in the ground. Whales are ALWAYS above dinosaurs. Flatfish are ALWAYS above pterosaurs. Flowering plants are ALWAYS above trilobites. Evolution explains this... creationism doesn't.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond (a) So are you proposing that during the alleged 12 and 100+ million-year gaps that no deposition occurred?
I think you really need to think this one through. You can't have it both ways. Either during those alleged 12 and 100+ million years deposition occurred, or erosion occurred. You can't simply have nothing occurring for that length of time unless you propose that common geological processes had simply stopped.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
"(a) So are you proposing that no deposition occurred?"
Of course not: but deposition only occurs in certain areas, obviously. Gaps represent a time when no deposition was occurring. There are plenty of modern geologic formations that show this flatness: salt flats, basins, lake beds, etc. If we don't see wild varieties in these locations, why would we expect to see them between the layers?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond Be specific: Why was no deposition occurring for 12 and 100+ million years in the Grand Canyon area? Was the area underwater or not? Did it rain during that length of time or not? Did the wind blow during that length of time or not?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
To answer your question:
There was no deposition because that area was not covered by the sea.
The area was not underwater.
It certainly did rain during that time, although rarely (it was a desert then too.)
The wind certainly did blow.
Now... what does this have to do with your suggestion that somehow there is erosion missing? Erosion makes things flat and smooth... violent events make things jagged and edgy. That's how we know the layers weren't formed by a flood.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond No, erosion does not make things simply flat and smooth. The Grand Canyon itself is evidence of that.
Erosion leaves gullies, ravines, ditches, and valleys. New deposition would fill these in, and they would then be visible when looking at a cross section. You'd have a "fossil" ravine, a ravine filled in with sediment from the new layer on top.
But in those alleged 12 and 100+ million year gaps, there is no such fossil erosion. No erosion = no gap!
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond (b) Your list of alleged species does not address my statement: "Since God made man of the dust of the earth, there are no ancestors of man in the fossil record, unless they be other men."
The species of your list are either misidentified or simply other men, descendants of Adam whom God created from the dust around 6000 years ago.
In other words, if any of those species are indeed human, they are descendants of the first man, not ancestors.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
"The species of your list are either misidentified or simply other men."
What's your evidence?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond The evidence we could discuss depends upon your perspective, where you are coming from. Perhaps the simplest and most conclusive evidence would be to assume that you believe in God and the Bible, and to then say that I have a history book written by someone who personally knew and spoke with the One who was there at Adam's creation..
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
"The evidence we could discuss depends on your perspective."
Then it's not evidence, is it? Evidence means facts that we can agree on regardless of our presuppositions. In Science, our goal is to limit our assumptions as much as possible.
For example, I'm happy to ask for evidence on this point with no presuppositions at all: I won't assume ANYTHING about the age of the earth.
Now... what is the evidence that ALL hominid fossils are strictly non-human?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond (c) You have failed to address the finding of pollen in Cambrian rocks. Such pollen refutes your statement.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
Pollen in Cambrian rocks? I assume you're talking about the Hakatai Shale pollen and the work of Clifford Burdick, right? Do you really want me to go into how silly this claim is? Just say yes if you want an answer...
But, since I've answered so many questions, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering two or three of my own?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond I was thinking of Burdick's work, but now see that creationist Arthur Chadwick has refuted it at origins dot swau dot edu slash papers slash dinos slash pollen slash eng slash index dot html
But Chadwick states that there is angiosperm pollen & vascular tissue in the Saline series of the Salt Range in Punjab, India, conformably under Cambrian deposits.
He also states that the subject of the Salt Range beds is proscribed among Indian and many western paleontologists today. Why?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
Oh goodness... this is an old chestnut from the early 70s...
Yes, Burdick did claim to find pollen in Cambrian rocks.
Yes, other scientists who did the same tests couldn't replicate it (in 1973).
Yes, examination of Burdick's pollen showed that it was probably a contaminate, as it was less than a thousand years old.
So what do you think... do you think the Grand Canyon formed less than a thousand years ago?
Now... can I ask you some of my questions?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond No, the Grand Canyon would have formed within the last 3500 years, not the last 1000 years.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
(d) The fossil record contains lots of plants, and dinosaurs eat a lot. That certain layers contain large amounts of dinosaurs bones without fossil evidence of the plants needed to support those dinosaurs is evidence of a global, catastrophic, flood.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
(d) How does the lack of plants support a catastrophic flood? Are you saying that, biblically speaking, there weren't enough plants to support dinosaurs? Or that the plants were mysteriously sifted out of the flood debris, while the bones stayed?
But of course, as I've just pointed out, plants general fossilize much more rarely than bones. This is why we find fewer plant fossils.
But even then, you're wrong: We find plants in EVERY layer. Name one that is plant-less.
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond (d) Large dinosaurs could conceivably survive the inundations that buried the plants, and then were overcome by later inundations when the plants were already buried.
If you want to know more about the deposit(s) that contain lots of dinosaurs with little or no plants to sustain their huge masses, get a copy of David Read's book Dinosaurs.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
"(d) Large dinosaurs could conceivable survive..."
Yes, but we're not talking about just large dinosaurs, remember? We're talking about ALL dinosaurs. Besides... if what you said were true, we would find a layer of fossilized plants directly under the layer of fossilized dinosaurs. We don't.
But most importantly, you said that the fossils distinctly support the Creation model.
Again: how does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
"Yes, but we're not talking about just large dinosaurs, remember? We're talking about ALL dinosaurs."
I was talking about the dinosaurs Read referred to.
"Again: how does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?"
I already told you. If you want to read more about it in depth, get Read's book.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
"Again: how does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?"
"I already told you."
No, you didn't... you tried to explain how they could be filtered out from dinosaur bones, which, even if it were true, STILL doesn't support Creationism.
So, one last time: How does the lack of plant fossils support Creationism?
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
@FiverBeyond
I still believe that I already told you.
If evolution be true, then you wouldn't have just footprints in a lower formation, and just dino bones without adequate plants in higher formations. The large dinos needed lots of food to support their size. It just isn't there.
Noah's flood explains that. Evolution doesn't.
Again, if you want to read more about that, get Read's book "Dinosaurs." He also deals with land dinos buried at sea, another conundrum for evolution.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing
*** Politely tips hat ***
FiverBeyond 1 year ago
I am grateful for having watched this interesting video. It does indeed conform to my belief in the Biblical truth. How awesome God, (Father to those who know Him through His Son, Jesus), is. I used to believe the lie - evolution! I praise the Lord for His revelation to the truth and of His saving grace.
tom4iota 1 year ago
Every dating method used shows the earth is millions of years old, and they cross check each other.
He go his samples from uranium mines and can't figure out where halos come from.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz It is false that every dating method shows that. Consider the U238/Pb206 ratios in U-238 halos in Triassic and Jurassic coalified wood.
Gentry scientifically falsfied every naturalistic explanation for the Po halos. Read the peer-reviewed articles in the back of his book if you are in doubt.
I suspect that you resist the scientific evidence so much because you feel that your religious beliefs are threatened. Why not simply accept the science?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing It is not the science, it is his logic that is flawed. Halos are made by Uranium.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) If the science is not flawed, then the Po halos were made by primordial Po, not U.
(b) There is no excess fossil alpha-recoil tracks near halo centers, showing that there was no diffusion of isotopes through the solid rock to the halo centers.
(c) Coalified wood contained only Po-210 halos, not Po-218 or Po-214 halos. Thus, if these latter halos couldn't form in logs soaking in isotope-bearing solution, then they certainly couldn't form in solid rock.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing a Po is a daughter product of U decay. It did not magicly appear proving the earth poof suddenly appeared.
b. you have no idea what you are talking about
c.no one accepts these arguments.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Irrelevant. While that fact leads one to consider a transport hypothesis, such an hypothesis was falsified long ago due to the absence of fossil alpha-recoil tracks.
(b) I've read the published reports. Have you?
(c) "No one" is false. Any scientist who is open-minded will consider these arguments. The problem is when a scientist holds to a particular world view that is falsified by this scientific evidence.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Have you studied catastrophic floods before?
Water flows down hill right? The Grand Canyon is at 8000 feet, how did the layers get there? Why is there only one Grand Canyon?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz I have studied the historical, catastrophic flood known as Noah's Flood.
The scientific evidence fits the idea that the layers at the Grand Canyon were laid down during a global flood.
Not sure what you mean by your last question. My point was that there are no fossil canyons in the GC, little or no erosion between layers. If you are asking why that is so, it's because there was no time between layers for erosion to occur.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing There are many unconformities in the Grand Canyon. Missing layers due to erosion. Why does there have to be erosion between layers? Can't the landscape change and keep laying down sediments?
You say you studied the flood, have you read a geology book or did you listen to bible stories.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) If layers representing 12 or 100+ million yrs were missing because of erosion, then there should be valleys and gullies that would have gotten filled with sediment. Since such don't exist, we know that these layers were laid down very rapidly, leaving no time for erosion.
(b) I've read and studied scientific material having a bearing on Noah's Flood.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Why would you have valleys on a flat plane? Show me a valley in Kansas and I will show you one in AZ
If you study about noahs flood you are going to get bible stories. You can't study it in the real world because there was no flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) If it was a low, flat plane, then there was no erosion to cause the missing layers as you proposed. So you're stuck: Either you say there was no erosion because it was flat, or you say that the missing layers eroded away. Catch 22.
(b) So do you believe George Washington is a myth too? Genesis is a history book that says there was a Flood, and a lot of scientific evidence supports that. Yet you emphaticly deny that there was a flood even though you weren't there.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing When the area was under sea level sediments were laid down. When the land was raised above sea level, nothing was deposited, leaving a gap in the geologic column. IS Geology difficult for you?
b. You have not evidence for a flood, and you forgot to tell the Chinese to all die in a flood.
By 6000 BC Egyptians in the SW corner of Egypt were herding cattle and constructing large buildings. Subsistence in organized, permanent settlements in predynastic Egypt. They did not die
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Raise the land and you will get erosion. But you've changed your story. Before you said that the missing layers eroded away. Now you say that the missing layers were never deposited.
(b) The coalified wood halos are evidence of a recent, global flood. So are also the formations that contain dinosaur bones but little or no plants. Etc., etc.
The Chinese settled in China after Noah's Flood.
(c) Your chronology is wrong.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing If there is an unconformity, it is a gap in the record, a period were not net deposition happened. You can't tell how much was laid down or how much was worn away, there is no record. The point is, there are no ''erosion marks', erosion leaves a gap.
Plants evolved too. Flowers [seeds] did not show up in the fossil record until late in the dinosaur period.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) You're missing the point. There are "gaps" around the Grand Canyon which skeptics claim amount to 12 and 100+ million years. In that length of time there would have been significant erosion, traces of which would be left in the geologic column. No such traces exist.
(b) Scientific evidence shows that plants are no more likely to evolve than animals. Flowers existed before dinosaurs were created. That agrees with the finding of pollen in Precambrian deposits.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing You just don't understand, if there is erosion, rock is NOT deposited. It does not leave marks, it leaves a gap, nothing.
And the land is not flat, there are canyons, it is not completely level.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You are the one not understanding.
Erosion leaves behind ditches, gullies, ravines, valleys, and canyons. After 12 or 100+ million years, the geologic column should contain such, filled in with new sediment. They just aren't there. Therefore, such time gaps never took place.
Are you suggesting that the Grand Canyon contains within the 12 and 100+ million year gaps fossil canyons millions of years old that were later filled in with new sediment, you are simply mistaken..
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Most were deposited in warm, shallow seas and near ancient, long-gone sea shores in western North America. Both marine and terrestrial sediments are represented, including fossilized sand dunes from an extinct desert. There are at least 14 known unconformities in the geologic record found in the Grand Canyon area.
WIKIPEDIA
14 TIMES THERE WAS EROSION BETWEEN LAYERS !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Give me a link to a picture of a canyon or ravine within the 12 or 100+ million-year gaps filled up with sediment. Show me a picture of erosion between the layers described on the video Evidence by the Geoscience Research Institute.
Talking about erosion other than between the specific layers described on that video doesn't alleviate the problem for evolutionists.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing So why don't we find seed fossils before the dinosaurs? The same reason we don't find bunny fossils buried below the dinosaurs!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Try answering questions already posed to you before you start asking more. Like why are there dinosaur footprints in lower layers without dinosaur bones. And why there is pollen from flowering plants in Precambrian rock.
Skeptics aren't likely to see seed fossils where they think they can't possibly exist. And if they do see them, they will be less inclined to publish their findings than others.
There are exceptions. Evolutionists did report finding red blood cells in dino bones.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Just because you don't find fossil bones with the tracks, proves nothing except they didn't find any fossils of bones. There are no tracks before the 'Age of Dinosaurs.
Show you source for pollon in the cambrian.
They did not find red blood cells in dinosaur fossils. Mary said it ''looks like red blood cells'' Blood cells break down in about 2 weeks!
Stop getting your evidence from crationist web sites, THEY LIE !
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) I never said "proves." But it is evidence of a global flood. Larger dinosaurs made tracks but survived earlier inundations, only to succumb later during the flood event.
(b) Do a Google search for Precambrian pollen and you'll find citations to the published articles.
(c) Is smithsonianmag com a creationist web site? I found a great article on the red blood cells in dino bone there.
(d) And you don't think that skeptics and infidels lie? Aren't you being a bit naive?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Please note: You stated: "Flowers [seeds] did not show up in the fossil record until late in the dinosaur period." I replied, "Flowers existed before dinosaurs were created."
You stated as fact what needs to first be proven. Rather than state that flowers/seeds are first found in certain strata, you said they were first found late in the dinosaur period, as if evolutionary theory is a proven fact. It is not. It has been falsified repeatedly.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing ''as if evolutionary theory is a proven fact''
Evolution is a fact, the theory shows how it happened.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Evolution over long ages is by no means a fact.
Are you open mindedly willing to consider all the scientific evidence? Or is your mind made up?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing When was your bible story flood? The Ubaid culture lived in Mesopotamia in 5000BC and the flood didn’t obliterate their civilization.
Apparently the flood didn't reach China either as the Peiligang culture came into existence in 7000BC. This was quite an advanced culture and the Chinese were already accomplished farmers at this early date.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) God's flood story (not mine) is about a global flood that occurred around 2350 BC. That flood destroyed everything.
(b) You're relying on chronology devised by skeptics. Have you tried at all to verify the numbers you're giving?
PicklePublishing 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 Obviously, you must be incorrect, since the world didn't even exist back then. The atmosphere wasn't even created until about 6000 years ago.
I really wish you'd quit begging the question. You will get nowhere pontificating that such and such had to be in 6000 BC when you have done nothing toward proving that that date is valid. I can just pontificate back, and the discussion goes nowhere.
You're not coming across as if you want to open mindedly discuss the issues.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Tree rings go back 10,000 years. Accurate to withing 1 year!
The Egyptians were farming in 4000 BC, why didn't they die in a flood?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Can't. The earth didn't exist that long ago. Remember?
Plus, Noah's Flood wiped out all plant life just 4350 years ago or so. So you are simply wrong about the date of those tree rings. Read up on your history.
(b) Egypt was known as the Land of Ham. Ham was one of the sons of Noah. Ham wasn't born yet in 4000 BC. Neither was Noah. Again, read up on your history.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Where do you get your facts?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Depends on the facts you refer to. Some facts I get from scientific experiments and observations, and some from historical sources, and some from prophetic writings.
Where do you get your facts from?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Floods don't make different kinds of rock in distinct layers. What is the name of the mud layer with all the dead bodies in it?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Turbidity currents would produce distinct layers.
Have you studied catastrophic floods before?
What dead bodies are you referring to?
By the way, I've read how lower layers contain dinosaur footprints but little or no bones, and higher layers contain dinosaur bones but no plants. That fits a flood model, not an evolutionary model.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
The Grand Canyon took 5-7 million years to cut, a lot longer to lay down a mile of sediments.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz
Where is the evidence that the Grand Canyon took that long to form, instead of forming rapidly through cavitation?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing If the canyon was carved in a week, where did the 21 distinct layers come from. Most but not all, were made under water and raised to 7000 feet.
And there are layers under those layers.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Ever heard of turbidity currents? They're underwater avalanches. Geologists have identified turbidites in the Grand Canyon sediments.
Put it all together, Greg. What could possibly have laid down all the layers so quickly that there wasn't time for erosion to occur between layers, and lay down at least some of the layers during underwater avalanches? Noah's Flood.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing There are unconformities [erosion between layers]. There are many gaps in the geology, times of erosion, nothing being deposited.
Why is there only one Grand Canyon. 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 21 distinct layers of DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROCK.
Some are slow growing corals.
Floods don’t do that.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) You can say there is significant erosion between layers all you want. It doesn't make it true. Send me a picture of huge ruts buried in the canyon's sediments if you can.
(b) I already told you that the Coconino contains footprints formed in submerged sand, not dry sand. Experiments verified this. Have you done experiments to show otherwise?
(c) Floods can transport coral and bury it.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing a. Do you know what an unconformity is?
b. The coconino has desert animal fossils in it. Wind blown sand.
c. There is limestone ocean beds, not broken coral piled up.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Yes.
(b) You are incorrect since experiments prove that dry sand does not produce the kind of footprints that were fossilized.
(c) I don't understand your point. But again, have you personally found and seen shells and coral in the limestone you are referring to?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing What footprints? The Coconino Sandstone has dead animal fossils in it, desert animals and plants.
Limestone comes from shells
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Do a Google search for footprints & Coconino, and you'll find a number of sites discussing this issue.
(b) Sounds like a uniformitarian assumption to me, the idea that God could not have created limestone in the beginning. Indisputable evidence that a deposit of limestone came from shells would be the finding of shells in it.
Obviously, Precambrian limestone has no shells in it. Thus, the idea that such limestone did not come from shells should be considered by the open-minded.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing all limestone has fossils in it, have you looked.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Precambrian rock is known for its lack of fossils. Please send me a picture of fossils you have personally found in Precambrian limestone.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Most of the sediment in the GC were made under water. Clear salt water in shallow seas, nothing grows in muddy fresh water.
How did the Super Group get there, it is the tilted layer under the level layers?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) Under water deposition fits a flood model.
(b) The Super Group, being Precambrian, would represent pre-Flood, creation rock.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Creation rock???? Gawd dunit that way. LOL
Floods don't make different kinds of rock. Do you think everything comes from mud?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Your response is inappropriate and disrespectful.
In a global flood, the waters would bring in sediment from different localities at different times and deposit them, leaving different layers having different compositions behind.
Along with the mud one would need to have some cement. Walt Brown's theory, described in this video, explains where the Ca carbonate came from, from the mineralized waters that burst forth from the earth at the time of the Flood.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing and how did oceans get underground, under pressure?
and where did 20,029 feet of water go?
How did the flood make ash layers?
How did the fossils get sorted, simple to complex?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz (a) I never said the oceans got underground. But the water that was under there, God put there when He made the earth.
(b) Flood models I've seen don't need that much water to submerge the whole earth.
(c) Volcanic activity during the flood event provided plenty of ash.
(d) Trilobite fossils are more complex in lower layers, so fossils aren't sorted the way you suggest. Sorting would be due to body mass, tenacity to life, when certain ecological habitats were inundated, etc.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing God put it there, great, just prove allah did it.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Do you have any other explanation for how the water that Genesis says burst forth from the earth got there?
Are you saying that the Koran agrees with Genesis?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@gregrutz Secondly, have you personally seen the sea shells in the limestone he is sitting on? If not, do you know anyone else who has?
In other words, I understand that there is limestone out there that has no shells in it. Do you have an explanation for such?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Limestone is made from sea shells, most limestone has many shells in it. I have hiked to the bottom of the Grand Canyon 4 times.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Have you personally seen shells in the limestone layers you are referring to?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@ElProximo Wiki or google 'early writing'
.
The 4th millennium BC saw major changes in human culture. It marks the beginning of the Bronze Age and of writing.
The city states of Sumer and the kingdom of Egypt are established and grow to prominence. Agriculture spreads widely across Eurasia. World population in the course of the millennium doubles, approximately from 7 to 14 million people.
wikipedia
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo NO dummy. The BIBLE says everyone died in the flood that wasn't on the Ark. The bible is wrong, there was no global flood that killed everyone.
The Chinese prove it.
The Egyptians prove it is wrong.
Geologist have proven the bible was wrong about a flood.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz So how did the Chinese, Egyptians and geologists prove the bible was wrong about a flood? I am curious...and don't call people names, it always turns around on ya...
cathy356 1 year ago
@cathy356 the bible says only 8 people lived throught the flood. The Chinese history goes back before the flood and they didn't all die.
The bible is wrong.
And there is no geologic evidence for a flood. None.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo Problem one, you have no idea how geology works.
Layers come erosion, rivers, lakes.
A flood would only make one layer, big rocks on the bottom, silt toward the top.
Second, we do find neat layers of different kinds of rock, not what a flood would make.
Read a geology book so you know where layers come from.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo What is the name of this flood mud layer with all the fossils mixed together.
gregrutz 1 year ago
at 3:25. see the white cliff, the third layer down. It is called the Coconino Sandstone. It was formed from wind blown sand. We know this because of the fossils in it.
He is sitting on limestone, a sea bed made of sea shells.
We would then be forced,,,,,,no we wouldn't error error does not follow.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz The science class I took a long, long time ago gave scientific evidence for why the fossil footprints in the Coconino Sandstone had to be made underwater. Footprints in dry sand wouldn't be preserved. In moist sand the sand would stick to the feet of the animal, as I recall. One submerged sand would have a chance preserving footprints.
So where did you get wind blown from?
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing Do you live in the bible belt where they don't teach real science if it does not match the bible? The fossils in the Coconino are from desert plants and animals. Creationists never look at the fossils.
gregrutz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gregrutz Your comment is inappropriate, as if you don't have any real data to support your points. How would you feel if I asked you, "Do you live in the atheist belt where they don't teach real science if it matches the Bible?"
The class I took was taught by someone who had studied the fossils. But prove him wrong if you can. Conduct experiments to show how fossil tracks can form in dry sand, or moist sand, rather than only submerged sand.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@ElProximo Rate of what? How long organic material will last?
It can last 70 million years, just proven. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo No one ever said any things was gradual ! If Darwin did, he is 150 years out of date.
'instantly' was 50 million years LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo I don't see because don't know what you are talking about.
What ''rates'' are you talking about?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo Scientists don't have a problem understanding how life exploded in the Cambrian Period.
Creationists think they are punching holes in evolution,
by admitting an evolutionary breakthrough happened, 500 million years ago. LOL
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo
Dinosaurs stopped making fossils 65 million years ago. They left them for 165 million years, then nothing. Except for the ones we call birds.
They soaked the rock/fossil in strong acid and what was left behind was 'soft-tissue'. It does have organic remnants, no blood or tissue.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo They didn't find ''soft tissue''
Who is ''we'' found a critter'
And why would it prove evolution didn't happen, it might update the theory.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo So why do we have 98.6% the same DNA as a Chimp.
Chimps are closer to humans than they are to gorillas.
Yes, the life in the Cambrain Period is complex,
In the Pre-Cambrian they were simplier.
Thanks for pointing that out.
This process of becoming more complex is called EVOLUTION.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo You can prove evolution wrong, just find a bunny fossils buried with the dinosaur fossils. OR find a dinosaur fossils with trilobite fossils.
OR show we are not Apes/monkeys/primates/mammals/ tetrapods.
gregrutz 1 year ago
There are over 250,000 peer-reviewed 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!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@ElProximo Let me guess - you are a Christian. It's very telling that the *only* people who have any issue with the Big Bang, age of the Earth, evolution, and a number of other foundations of modern science are Christians.
Really, it would be cool if someone came up with an alternate theory of life (an actual scientific theory), but that doesn't happen.
Instead, we get religious fundies who read a biased website then lose the ability to distinguish between science and magic.
Sad.
Wow.
fkbryce 1 year ago
that makes no sence at all their are no facts of this. Just look how long it takes for a river to carve its river bed. or how long it takes a ocean to turn a rock into sand. look how long it takes for a diamond to form.
blk05gt 1 year ago
@blk05gt Man make diamonds. Floods can do great damage and carve rivers. Thousands of years can make sand, erosion is faster than we realise by the ocean.
jiminiflix 1 year ago
I think my only stupidity would be to answer you.
Best wishes.
Calypsis4 1 year ago
The earth is billions of years old. If somebody has another opinion, he should write a scientific paper and submit it for peer revue. To appeal to the" voice of the people" to gain credibilty in scientific matters is immature. Darwin stood alone with his theory against the world. He won. Anybody with great ideas can do the same.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Your wish was granted quite some time go. Read peer-reviewed scientific reports at halos . com which show that the earth is but thousands of years old, not billions.
From the home page at halos . com, just click "Reports" in the menu at the left.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@what peer-review, from bible scholars ?
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon I suppose it is possible that some of the physicists that review articles for the journals Science and Nature and such are also Bible scholars. After all, Sir Isaac Newton I think was both a renowned scientist and a Bible scholar.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@PicklePublishing: Newton had a fantasic brain, bordering the insane. He was obssessed with Revelation and spend hours and days looking for bible codes and trying to find the date for Armageddon.and the end of the world. He came up with 2060.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Tigerpawz: who are you to decided what a 'real doctorate' is? Dr. Gentry is a PhD who has several peer reviewed papers which you can check out for yourself. Do you have any peer reviewed papers?
The truth is that you don't like what he says about the age of the earth but he is quite correct.
Calypsis4 1 year ago
@Calypsis4 @Calypsis4 Actually, as the back of his book states, Bob Gentry has an honorary DSc (Doctor of Science) rather than a PhD. I think he's listed in Whos Who in America as well. Much better, though, is if our names are written along with multitudes of others in the Lambs Book of Life.
PicklePublishing 1 year ago
@Calypsis4 His peer reviewed papers do fine when Gentry sticks to the facts and just does science research. It's when he brings in the whole "this part of science is wrong because the Bible says so" argument that people laugh uproariously at him.
Let's face it, the Bible is not any kind of science textbook, and basing science on the bible deserves the ridicule it gets.
If he had a problem with science based on *science* and not what the "prophet" Ellen White said, that would be welcomed.
fkbryce 1 year ago
brilliant refute
mathewjohn5174 2 years ago
true but others who are new to the truth may need more so its nice to be able to show them that science agrees with god.
ave383 2 years ago
mikilavush
Science has and will continue confirming the truth of Genesis, since Genesis is the truth about our Origins, starting from the Origin of the Universe, most recent discoveries in cosmology has confirmed that the Universe expanded from the size of a marble to its present NOT in 13.7 billions years but the trillion of a trillionth of a second, this very one discovery confirms the very first verse of the Bible...In the begining God "created" the heavens an the earth"
God bless you
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
I certainly do believe that God`s creation speaks against evolutionism, but I can not be sure that everything young-earth science says is true and right, since I do not know much about science and as a christian I am not absolutely to trust anything in this world. If God can let Satan`s secret servants change his words in the Bible into insignificant contradictions and add false scriptures to his words, why would he not let Satan tempt people through young earth-science aswell?
mikilavush 2 years ago
mikilavush
I´ll tell, I used to believe in "scientists" and my professors at school, but I did find a couple of Dino-foot-prints as lookins as fesh as last week imprinted, so I moved foward to investigate the whole issue, and I´ve found many and I meant it, indication that this Universe and of course the Solar system and life on planet earth it´s not that old as those impaired mind evolutionists want us to believe.-Just take a look at the Comets and the totally hypotetical Ooort cloud
chuyaventuras 2 years ago
So, how does non-living matter randomly turn into a living organism? Nobody actually knows what primordial soup is, nobody knows how DNA or protein could possibly form since they are dependent on each-other, and the fact that Amino Acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen makes that idea sound pretty impossible. It also has never, ever been observed. Could you explain your belief to me so that maybe I could understand it.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Do you have any evidence to substantiate that claim. Hey, Creationist say the same about evolutionist, it was impossible for it to happen(evolution). You've asked questions now it's my turn.
Where did the universes original matter come from?
How did life begin?
Where are all the supposed transitional fossils between the Precambrian and Cambrian periods?
Where did the dinosaurs come from?
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
It is not made up of parables. You are taking these out of context. There are a few parables but the whole New Testament is not a parable. Parables are short simple stories to prove a point.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Umm.. Your definitions... Um.. Tell me what you believe in first before we go on any further, you're wishy washy.
zombieiscool 2 years ago
I believe that Jesus is God's son and that he was sent in our place to die on the cross. I believe the Bible is infallible and I believe jesus was sinless.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
There are mistranslations here and there, like adding an S to a word or a minor thing like that. Key word is minor. You have to realize that the original Bible is the perfect one. King James and Tyndale who translated the Bible did a pretty good job. The overall message was not affected by these little. Some parts are parables and others are not.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Scientific Accuracy
Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
and many others.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Still waiting for the proof
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
The one in Matthew and Luke are different because one shows his mother's side and the Joseph's side of the family.
okstateuniversity 2 years ago
Yes, Christ is the only way. Horus, Allah and other gods cannot stand up to the scrutiny that the Christian faith and the Bible have withstood for centuries. There is more reason to believe than to not believe. I found your description of God comical. You call the creator of the universe a megalomaniac...but you, the creation, who cannot create anything deny His existence. Hah! Who is the megalomaniac?
1711Acts 2 years ago
You are correct Followers have faith. Thank God.
The "first Causation" of our universe CANNOT be refuted, the only real question is what exactly is this "First Cause"?
at987ta 2 years ago
Logically, since all religions contradict each other, there are only two options open to us. Either they are all false or there is only one true religion. If there is one God there will only be one religion. The person who objects is 'too narrow' to accept the truth. God gives us faith to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way. Followers of Christ worship in spirit and in truth. The bible calls for the saved to apply God's word to any given situation.
at987ta 2 years ago
Imaginefree69
A sincere question.
If it is all false, religion, theBible etc..why waste so much time and effort talking about it.
I dont believe in many things. But I dont dedicate my life to disprove them.
Its not worth my time.
So once again I ask. Why all the effort?
manasseh41 2 years ago