Off Topic Posts aka Rabbit Trail Thread - Mostly YEC Geology

So, you are saying that moses, who was inspired by God, deliberately lied when he wrote that the world was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. I'm sorry, but I don't worship a God who would purposefully and deceitfully lie like that.

No, I'm say that God did not write the Bible and that Moses even if Moshe existed, had nothing to do with Genesis 1.The purpose of Genesis 1 has absolutely nothing to do with explaining creation of anything other than the sacred week and the sabbath.

Our own minds are all we've got. You use your own mind too to conclude that the Bible is the word of God just like anybody else uses theirs. Your conclusion is just as fallible as anybody else's. Unfortunately, you stop at "knowing" that science is wrong. You don't have either the faith or the intellectual honesty to test what you think you "know".If petroleum can be made in a short period of time, make some. Get rich. (Or even just do the calculations: How much vegetable matter would it take to make all of the world's petroleum reserves? How many generations of plants would it take? How much carbon dioxide would they have to take out of the air?)

OK, let me put it this way. Once my mind has been convinced that the Bible is the word of God, then the word of God becomes the authority over my mind. You are certain that the earth is older than 6000 years, you said that with strong absolute certainty. I've committed myself to the word of God with at least that same degree of certainty. And again, once that commitment is made, God's word and God Himself become the authority over me. Simply because He IS God and His word IS His word. Unfortunately apparently you've done the same thing with the false idea of the old earth, let it rule over you. Well, as Bob Dylan said, ya gotta serve somebody. We've made our choices. I strenuously object to this common accusation that Christians and creationists oppose "SCIENCE." I do NOT oppose real science, I oppose CERTAIN PARTICULAR "sciences." I DO make the distinction between REAL science and the speculative untestable unprovable "sciences" of the past, old earthism and evolutionism, whether anybody else wants to recognize that distinction or not. It's a completely real and important distinction to me and to Christians in general. TRUE science produces useful things and NO CHRISTIAN opposes true science. I've done all the testing required to have arrived at my conclusion. Having arrived the word of God judges ME, I do not judge God and His word. I thought it was animal matter that made petroleum, plant matter makes coal. I doubt it would take as long as you think it does. Hundreds, at most a couple thousand years should be sufficient but very possibly much less, even within a human lifetime with the application of enough pressure in airtight conditions. Either coal or petroleum. Of course you'd have to round up some dead animals, or just try plants. We aren't going to be able to make enough to get rich on but perhaps enough to demonstrate that you CAN make the stuff. The pre-Flood world was LOADED with vegetable matter, beyond our ability to imagine. Animals too. Extraordinary fecundity. Press some of whatever you can gather together between huge heavy rocks -- about a ton each. Pack a bunch of mud around your organic matter too. And wait a while. Shouldn't take anywhere near as long as you think. Give it ten years. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Uh, "wrote"? After Moses (c. 1300 BCE), Genesis was transmitted via oral tradition until it was finally written down about 700 years later circa 600 BCE. That is to say that after a 700-year chain of one generation after another telling the next generation "here's what Moses said", one generation finally wrote it down.Shortly after the start of the 19th century, the Classical period gave way to the Romantic, whose characteristics included nationalism which further drove them to examine folklore. They believed that folk tales extended far back in time and had been transmitted unchanged over hundreds of generations. What they discovered instead was that very few stories were more than a few generations old.Furthermore, we find that each generation has a tendency to "improve" the story with new information. There is an isolated tribe in Africa, "completely" cut off from the rest of the world. Part of their mythology centers around Sirius (Alpha Canis Majoris, "The Dog Star", the brightest star in the night sky). In 1862, a faint companion star to Sirius was discovered. Anthropologists were amazed that this tribe's mythology included a companion for Sirius, leading some to wonder how they could have discovered that (ancient aliens buffs would have had a field day with this one). However, the notes of a previous team of anthropologists show that at that time the mythology said nothing about any companion to Sirius. That means that somehow news of that discovery had leaked in from the outside, possibly by someone in that earlier anthropological team, and the tribe immediately incorporated it into their oral tradition.Similarly, American Indian creation myths have undergone extensive "rewriting" in response to their contact and bitter experience with Europeans.A lot can happen to an oral tradition in seven centuries. It does not make any sense to me how you can blame an ancient figure for "saying" what somebody else wrote down 700 years later. It is your theology that is saying that, not any of us. Theologies are all man-made and fallible. A theology can be wrong about something without it being God's fault.

You said you couldn't see 'em with the naked eye unless you were close up. This is not true. I am saying that geologists do not suppose they were in place for billions of years. The reason I find it hard to take seriously is that it appears to be stupid. You are lying to me, about me. How do you think that's going to work out? No, I mean the tilting of the Grand Canyon Supergroup, as I keep saying. Fine, use plasticine. Stack up some layers of different-colored plasticine. Now tilt the lower layers at about 15 to the horizontal while leaving the upper layers flat. I keep telling you, in a completely non-cryptic way. I am talking about the tilting of the G.C.S. You know, the thing that is tilted? And I told you. The north ends of the strata in the G.C.S. Those strata stop. They are truncated by the angular unconformity. But if they were laid down horizontally, which may be the one thing we agree on, then they weren't formed like that, they continued on to the north. So where did they go when the tilting occurred? All of them. All the disconformities and unconformities seem to me to present a challenge to this flood geology nonsense. If you try to explain even one of them as being caused by run-off from the flood, then you need some explanation other than flood waters for the deposition of the sediment above it. Stop lying. Obviously I'm trying to understand your nonsense, that's why I keep asking questions about it. The problem is that you're posting incoherent rubbish.If you can't put it into words, try drawing some actual pictures.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Stem cell research.

More microorganisms than either animals or plants. One can find components in oils that are only made by, say, cyanobacteria. And how, exactly, do you know that "The pre-Flood world was LOADED with vegetable matter?" Did you observe it? Does the Book of Genesis document it? Or did you just make that part up, like the bit you made up about lower strata tilting while leaving upper strata undisturbed, and having their (the lower ones') north halves disappear?

Good one, CS. In that case it's a moral issue and has nothing to do with the scientific question i was addressing.

Standard Biblical reasoning says the pre-Flood world was extraordinarily fertile and lush. Actually since we interpret the fossil record to reflect that world there's your evidence.

That's a typical revisionist lie. Genesis was NOT transmitted by oral tradition, it was WRITTEN by Moses and probably some scribes in his time. Check how your sources for such nonsense arrive at it: they literally MAKE IT UP.

I have never once said a disconformity is not visible. Thanks a bunch for using initials in your devious cryptic fashion. I had no idea what you were referring to. That I've explained from the beginning, that's the WHOLE THING I've been explaining, how the bottom layers got tilted after all the layers were in place. They were abraded by the horizontal slide under the upper horizontal strata, which caused the band of erosion there. But see the illustrations in Lyell. The lower strata BUCKLE, they FOLD, and it is the folded-over parts that were abraded. That isn't the ENDS of the strata you are talking about, it's where the folded strata were broken off in the upheaval.And thanks again for your cryptic style of noncommunication. I'm talking about erosion between layers and you're talking about dis and un conformities. As I said try speaking ordinary English and stop trying to trip me up with your devious games. Also stop accusing me of lying, it's you who are making the conversation impossible. \I'm not talking about disconformities and your constant sabotage of communication makes you not worth talking to.I've had enough of this, thanks anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your interpretation, when it is contradicted by scientific findings, is not evidence.(See signature lines.)

It's evidence of what lived before the Flood in Creationist SCIENCE. Of course you want to pretend we don't exist. Sorry, we do. It's evidence.

There is no such thing as "Creationist SCIENCE" can never be such a thing as "Creationist SCIENCE" and claiming something is "Creationist SCIENCE" is at best an oxymoron but in most cases simply a lie.Edited by jar, : fix quote box