The Flood = many coincidences

The problem is that they don't see the inconsistency in questioning everything about science, but never asking a single question about their own faith. Questioning is good, as long as you do it across all beliefs, and have a standard level of confirmation you will adhere to.

EXACTLY!! The point of science is to question everything, not just ideas that you feel uncomfortable with. It is through this falsification that science marches on constantly, while creationists are stuck with: "no, wait, evolution is untrue! [whine]"

Except that they don't question it, they (YECS) simply reject it since it conflicts with their fairytales.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

True, but it in no way assumes that it occurred any more recently that 65 million years ago. Your flood myth doesn't hold water.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

You cannot be seriously using carbon dating still. All radiometric dating insists the tester assumes initial C14 content. When an assumption is made it allows in presuppositions as to the actual date. Therefore radiometric dating is useless unless you were told exactly how much of the isotope existed when the sample was formed or died or was sealed into place. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

There are radiometric dating methods other than C14, and the dating that Coragyps refers to is not via C14 dating.Regardless, if you wish to argue the validity of C14 or any other radiometric dating methodology, the Dates and Dating forum is the place to do such. Please look there for an appropriate topic.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Coyote has bumped an appropriate C14 topic, Radioactive carbon dating.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

Hi Rox. My apologies for the delayed response.The concept of Vertical Tectonics has its precedence in volcanism. We see this process creating new land vertically as the rise of magma chambers continually contacting water thus explosively pulverizing rock, ejecting it laterally until new land is formed. As you know, massive volcanism is also followed by igneous resurgent domes. Again, the primary movement is vertical, lateral movement is secondary. If you take this model and scale it up, then you have the potential process of formation of the continents — vertically.Genesis says the Spirit of God was above the waters. Thus, land rose from the waters and it is plausible that volcanism was part of that process. The consistent explosive process causes sedimentation as the magma body is continually pulverized and ejected.The Great Flood could very well have been a similar process, i.e. a series of massive rising magma chambers. Except this time, they decimated land rather than created it. What we truly observe today are massive broken up volcanic edifices, a massive sedimentation deposition process, and massive carving (canyons, gorges, etc) of rock via movement of water. Therefore, the rocks tell us a story of massive destruction that consisted of volcanism and water. We also see massive igneous provinces all over the globe and truly, it was a very bad day when this massive amount of lava was protruding.As I have clearly displayed in my other posts, my primary disagreement with the current plate tectonic theory is the lateral movement of landmass on a continental scale. In other words, the breakup of Pangea hypothesis is weak, yet the theory of plate tectonics has been used to prove this alleged breakup via sea floor spreading at the MOR’s. Therefore, this spreading mechanism is the essence of the current PT theory. Other scientists, including myself, have pointed out the problems with this mechanism, yet for some strange reason it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I believe this is due to the repeated published fact of the age of oceanic lithosphere as being ~200 million years old because scientists biasness toward a slow evolutionary process. Of course, the likes of National Geographic who state these claims, are most definitely an anti-Bible, anti-God, pro-evolutionary organization. (I won’t dig up my old mags from the 60’s and 70’s that dogmatically display the absurd monkey-to-man diagrams)Case in point; The Continental Drift Theory originated from the appearance that S. America fits into the crook of Africa. Yet when we truly study the bathymetry along both coast lines, we see this is not the case. Furthermore, the NE quadrant of S. America, the Amazon, is nothing but a low-lying swamp. It is apparent that this area was undersea at one time and therefore land such as this surviving a 2,500 mile drift is highly unlikely to say the least. Again, I don’t argue movement or continental creep. But this creeping being responsible for ALL geological phenomenon and the "splitting" of continents? Certainly not.So I believe 1) land rose vertically initially, and 2) land came down vertically. The driving force behind this process is volcanic, which is known and observed.Thanks and Happy New Year.

"True, but it in no way assumes that it occurred any more recently that 65 million years ago. "There is much more evidence that scientists are again ignoring regarding the demise of Dino et.al. For example, there is a large amount of evidence of an ancient civilization in the SW US existing a few thousand years ago, forgotten even by Native American tribes. Much of this was documented in the late 1800’s. Their remains are impressive and I have trampled on them myself (not standing buildings but foundations and massive infrastructures). Given the fact that this ancient civilization was mysteriously wiped out and buried, and the fact of numerous Dino tracks and remains on the surface within the same vicinity, then one can conclude that Man and Dino lived at the same time, and not that long ago and were BOTH wiped out. I have also witnessed ancient carvings of these terrible lizards in remote canyon walls.Therefore I believe in a second series of mass extinction, and it was volcanic of course. The SW US is peppered with massive volcanism. It is also known that there is a huge magma body below the surface in AZ. Let’s hope it does not decide to rear its head any time soonthat would be another really bad day."Your flood myth doesn't hold water."It is certainly not "my" flood.... and yes, there was lots of water.

This is pretty amazing. Where did you learn all this stuff?Can you document it?I don't know where to begin. Virtually everything you are saying is wrong.Edited by edge, : tagsEdited by edge, : No reason given.

Then show some with scientific evidence. This is a science topic. But nowhere near enough.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

"Archie, you neglected to answer me: have you never heard of the Global Positioning System? Garmin? Tom-Tom?"Coragypsie, Yup, wasn't a GPS a classical Pontiac? If you ever come across a '62 421 'swiss cheese' racer, CALL ME, they're hard to find...GPS nor any other "plate detection" movement of a fistfull of centimeters a year does not prove squat in terms of plate tectonics being "responsible" for geological phenomenon. If a building of mine moves a few centimeters without control, I'm in trouble! Yet when a entire blasted continent moves an absurd, laughable, pathetic ~5cm, you guys get all excited and say "lookee, play tectonics is true... it actually moved... we detected it from space... never mind GPS can be off several meters... we like play tectonics too much... we'll keep drawing little arrows on our play tectonic maps... its fun..."Plate tectonics is junk. It is the gripping monkey riding the back of scientists that has turned into an 800 lb gorilla! You guys can't shake it because your addicted to this absurd, obsolete, pathetic 5cm/year "theory". Get rid of it.The fact of giant rising magma chambers is true and observed.Ever heard of ballistic sedimentation? Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : sic

Where are the bones?As an archaeologist in the western US for 40 years I've dealt with lots of bones, but never dinosaur bones. I've handled mastodon bones, and the bones of tiny sardines, and everything in between. But never any dinosaur bones.Where are they? And why don't any of us who actually deal with this subject ever find them?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It's Blavatsky again. The Secret Doctrine by H. P. Blavatsky Inspired but misleading move to modernize mysticism by associating doctrines derived third-hand from the Vrajnayana dhyana texts which describe hypnagogic experiences during various kinds of trance, familiar to us mostly from their summary in Liberation Through Hearing (aka the Tibetan Book of the Dead), with the anachronistic scientific theories of the 19th century, which attempted to describe changes in elevation and water-level in terms of rising and submerging continents like Atlantis and Lemuria (since replaced with ideas of supercontinents like Pangaea and Gondwanaland.) Inspired a lot of the "weird fiction" of the past two centuries, such as Robert E Howard, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, H P Lovecraft, and J R R Tolkien. Easily debunked by anyone who spends half a bhang worth of time with an actual lama.

The evidence that drove development of the theory of plate tectonics derived from two primary sources: magnetic striping of the sea floor, and magnetic orientation of continental rocks. GPS measurements of plate motions constitute a modern confirmation of plate tectonic theory but had nothing to do with its development.--Percy

Content-free rant done?Care to make any meaningful comments? Yep, as predicted by PT... Sounds irrelevant, but I'd love to hear about it.