Geological timescale and the flood.

And how long do you plan on waiting? Till the 3rd coming of Christ?

why would plate tectonics start 4400 years ago when the planet was allegedly 6000 years ago? That doesn't make any sense. Why would the plates start moving 1600 years in?Furthermore, why would they stop moving when the reason they move still exists?Is geology no longer taught in middle school?

quote:

---

They would start moving as part of the big universe state change that happened after the flood.

---

What? What big state change? What evidence is there to suggest that any radically changed?

quote:

---

Neither of us can use science on that one to back it up.

---

Actually I'm going to use the time frame to show that your argument doesn't make sense.

quote:

---

For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

---

Not for the reasons you give. Your argument doesn't even address basic geology. Plates move because the magma under the plates and friction between plates. Why would they start moving 1600 years in and then slow when magma hasn't significantly changed?Furthermore, massive movement of plates would result in huge amounts of earthquakes, tidal waves, mountain ranges everywhere and things people would record. There is no evidence whatsoever in any recorded civilization of such upheaval. Furthermore, plates moving 5 feet a year would require heat massively more substantial then today. Where did this heat go? Plates move 1 inch a year. Your argument requires 60 inches a year. Where did that extra heat go?

quote:

---

For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

---

Your entire argument is speculation. Why did they start moving and why did they all but stop?

quote:

---

As I said, science can't help either of us there. What evidence is there to suggest that any did not radically change?

---

Because there is no radical change? The physical conditions and laws of the Universe do not show any abrupt change. Why would we believe there was a radical change when there is no evidence of it? The evidence that suggests there was no radical change is because there is no evidence to suggest there was a radical change. Assume this senario is true: a tract of sand with no wind. There are no prints in it. Do you believe that a animal walked across it or that no animals walked across it? As there is no evidence (prints) that a animal walked across, we can assume no animal walked across.

quote:

---

You seem to think you are.

---

At this point, I'm not sure you'll even understand.

quote:

---

That depends on what the world was like back then, and the laws of physics.

---

Why would the laws of physics change? Why did they leave no evidence fo changing? Your argument is completely asinine. You assume things changed and hence you are right yet you provide absolutely no evidence and believe that things changed despite leaving no evidence of change. How do you think that is a good argument? According to you, the tract of sand had numerous animals walk across it despite leaving no evidence of their existence!

quote:

---

Yet, life was gently put here a few days later, no heat that was any danger to life at all.

---

What? Are you talking about? You don't even make any sense. You're now saying that life was put on the Earth AFTER the flood. Why did Noah even have to bother building it if God restocked the planet?This is insanity.

quote:

---

Why would we believe that this state was in effect, when there is no evidence of it?

---

Do you understand basic chemistry? How can you say there was no evidence?

quote:

---

No tracks exist that address the state of this universe, and it's laws in the far past.

---

Explain light, stars, gravity and radioactivity away then.

quote:

---

s mentioned, the separation of waters from the land, in creation week, no great heat was then produced. That is different.

---

So magic. Got it. Goddiddit. You have no evidence, GoddiditYou still haven't explained anything about why plates would stop and start much less their corresponding heat or that you even understand the theory of plate tectonics.Why would there be no heat?I can see why many posters don't bother with you...

quote:

---

Either there's such a thing as coherent creation science, or there isn't. Let's have some of it. I'll try not to laugh. Honest.

---

After 'discussing' and I use discussing in the most liberal of ways possible, I'm voting there isn't anything remotely similar to a coherent creation science. The admin's post backs me up here.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

What? I refer you to this postWhere you argument against it was pure gibberish and did not provide any reasoning as to why your 'model' and I use that term loosely, has any credibility.All you did was given bible passages and did not even address the basic issues of geology!Well founded...in what?

If you provided evidence to support your argument, which you haven't and stopped ignoring how things actually work, you wouldn't be accused of gibbberish, not to mention just pretending that people didn't make points that refuted you entirely. And it appears you've done this in the past. That would explain why there are few posters replying to you.