|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But the shells we are talking about are not millions of years old. But only a few thousands acording to dating.
Nonsense. The dates range over many millions of years. And they are nowhere near 4350 years ago (the concensus date ascribed to the mythical flood). But if you have scientific evidence to the contrary concerning these fossils that you'd like to present, feel free. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^ You "belief" is flawed.
The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others. nd atleast im not ignorant having read so much that evolutionist wrote. You appear to have the selective ignorance characteristic of many creationists; if science contradicts the bible then science is wrong.
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood.But doesn't believe in the flood happening in the past. I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all. There was no global flood in the past. Its not a matter of belief, its a matter of evidence. The early geologists were mostly creationists, and for many the goal was to document the flood. They gave up in the early 1830s because the evidence showed that there was no flood. Its a myth. As for abiogenesis, all of those 1050,000 type numbers that creationists and various mathematicians come up with are flawed.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte. Scientists follow the evidence, and if it shows the bible was wrong that is of no consequence to scientists. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to ignore or misrepresent any evidence that shows their beliefs are incorrect. Now which is the more honest approach? Belief gets in the way of learning. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Have you really know that the oldest writen record was not 5000 years old or you are just stupid? The oldest written records reliably date past 5,000 years ago.
Have you really know that the dating methods are not reliable in some way? Your question is somewhat garbled, but I assume you are challenging dating methods and claiming that they are unreliable. Better provide some evidence for that claim. So far, all of science is against you. This includes the various radiometric methods of dating, which correlate very well with annular events (tree-rings, varves, corals, etc.). If you are claiming that all of those methods of dating are inaccurate you had best provide some evidence (and see tagline for some guidance). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
OK, back to the topic.
The idea that seashells on mountaintops is evidence for a global flood is instead evidence that creationists: 1) Know, or care, little about science and its findings, or the scientific method; and 2) Are seeking desperately for any shred of evidence--no matter how flawed or erroneous--that there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago. Creation "science" isn't meant to convince scientists, its meant to confirm the beliefs of true believers and perhaps fool school boards. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
can you describe the scientific method as you understand it please.
Not on this thread--it would be very off topic. But you could start a new thread, it sounds like it could be fun. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Have you any response to the substance of my message?
Fossils on mountain tops are anything but evidence for a global flood. Only one little bit of evidence is needed to show that: the fossils are of vastly different ages from one mountain top to the next. If these fossils were from a single global flood they should date to the same year. They don't.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Another answer , mine, would be that these low mts only appeared after the flood as a part of the great upheavel that occured a few centuries after the flood. The whole backbone of North america exploded and crumpled and from this came many of the mts there. And all of this happened sometime in the last 4,300 years or so? Who don't the geologists, archaeologists and other -ologists know about this?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The bible sets boundaries. The evidence of earth fills in the details. The bible is an ancient tribal myth. It has a poor track record as a scientific text. The evidence of the earth contradicts many of the things claimed by the bible.
So the events above the k-t line are post flood events and so the massive volcanoism fits with a general massive earth upheaval. This is an example of the myth I mentioned above. You assure us that the flood is at the K-T boundary, just over 60 million years ago, while another poster here assures it is marked by the Cambrian explosion, nearly 500 million years earlier. On the other hand, biblical scholars assure us the flood was closer to 4,350 years ago. This massive disagreement does nothing for the bible's credibility, nor the credibility of those offering these diverse opinions. It would help if there were some empirical evidence to document one of these three choices, but there does not seem to be any. The seashells on mountains is a classic example of trying to force the evidence of the earth to fit into the bible's elaborate myth system. But it just doesn't fit! Biblical literalists have to ignore a lot of empirical evidence, and manipulate a lot more, to come up with "what if" scenarios to try and fit the evidence of the earth into their myth cycle. But it just doesn't work, as everyone but the biblical literalists can clearly see. And what good is a belief that isn't true?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The bible is evidence to those who know its true. It claims to be a witness. To say only non biblical evidence may apply is to make a statement on this witness. Anyways it comes down to your side to show good evidenve for claims. Creationism easily shows this fails. The bible is an ancient tribal myth. It has been shown to be in error in a number of instances. Biblical literalism is better than artificial respiration at keeping ancient beliefs alive, but that doesn't make it so. Evidence for claims? Science has lots of evidence--whole libraries and museums full of evidence. Creationism has only apologetics and religious belief, which doesn't stand up to scientific evidence. Science easily shows that creationism fails.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The boundaries are the timetable for events. The evidence for the k-t line being the biblical line is the nature of the rocks. Above the line they are more volcanic or less strong indicating different processes of power. THen the fossil life assemblage makes a clear difference that otherwise would be if from the one biblical flood event. This is absolutely false. The K-T boundary is over 60 million years ago. The biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago. How do you explain that difference? (Answer: you don't--you just make it up as you go.)
Whatever is the rock type below the k-t line in these regions indicates its deposition nature. so simply it didn't include the sea areas materials if they are missing.
All nonsense. Belief isn't evidence. (See signature.)Then the later upheaval may first of covered the land with sediment from the upheaval in the land or from massive volcanic sediment . Then also from this the mountains rose without seashells being around. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024