Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!

Yes a real part of the curse! Disease, filth etc. And those who believe in evolution, do they not consider these nasty lower dirty life forms as their ancestors! Think for a minute, someone is behind this theory that really hated mankind!! How horribily insulting! Now as far as creation knowledge showing how the math is right for 6000 years, and utterly impossible for evolutions decrepid old age dreams, This is not a small thing. Now if you really believe the c.c has a rate which changes the simple math on human population go ahead and submit it. Creation folks have an quiver full of arrows with things pointing to a young earth. Wouldn't it be nice here to come on out and say, That is ridiculous-we never decended from cockcroaches! They are not MY ancestors! (Can you for us now honestly say that?)
"I only trace the lines that flow from God."--Albert Einstein (1879-1955), awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in theoretical physics, especially the law of photoelectric effect.

quote:

---

Creation folks have an quiver full of arrows with things pointing to a young earth. Wouldn't it be nice here to come on out and say, That is ridiculous-we never decended from cockcroaches! They are not MY ancestors! (Can you for us now honestly say that?)

---

We share a common ancestor with arthropods, we are not descended from them. So far all of you arrows have been duds. You might want to try another quiver.

You may reopen one of the population threads if needed.Simple, you too. See if you can stick to a topic. (you may find that forced on you yet)

So I guess you are more like brothers or grandchildren then, to the cockcroach? if you prefer that more than considering a cockcoach your grandfather-fine I want to leave you a shred of human dignity. Are the flies who love to crawl on sewage, a little further back than cockroach kin, or do they too just have to be considered more like brothers, from your common ancestor? My, you guys want me to believe so much!

The topic is "Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!"Let's stay ON TOPIC.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

quote:

---

The topic is "Hydroplates unchallenged young earth explains Tectonics shortcomings!"

​

Let's stay ON TOPIC.

---

--I would like to see Simple explain the observations I briefly discussed in post #166. How could any of this be observed to characterize the modern oceanic lithosphere and crust under a "hydroplate" framework? So far I have no reason to be optimistic.If he needs more information, I would be more than willing to expound on some of my points and/or provide detailed introductory and advanced references that he may want to get a hold of.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

Sorry Admins---!Chris,Getting off topic. Did your father tell you about our conversation and your options? I think it's worth pursuing. E-mail me.CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 02-10-2004]

Well, you know, what I was refering to by "unchallenged" is how none of you folks can muster up a challenge to the theory's originator, and who issued the offer, apparently as long as there is a level playing field. I can understand much more now why no one in your camp will come out and fight. Hence it remains unanswered! Even when one asks simple questions like below, or about Burgess, one is hard pressed to get anything of unassumed consequence. Well -closing this thread, I guess then, thanks. "For me, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for an orderly, intelligent universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God...'"--Arthur Comptom (1892-1962), awarded the 1927 Nobel Prize in physics for his discovery of the transter of energy from electromagnetic radiation to a particle, known as the Compton Effect

Simple,You were referred to a more appropriate thread to discuss Walt Brown's challenge.The EvC member who probably knows more about this topic than anyone else on the forums has been posting on your thread here. If you want to discuss Brown with Joe Meert, I'm sure he will follow to the appropriate thead to continue this.Meert/Brown Debate
EvC Forum: Meert / Brown Debate /sigh how many "heres" can I put in one sentence?[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-10-2004]

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

OK thanks. I think it was covered enough for me here. toodaloo

quote:

---

Getting off topic. Did your father tell you about our conversation and your options? I think it's worth pursuing. E-mail me.

---

--Yes he did, albeit highly paraphrased (at least I think that is most likely). I will e-mail you soon.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

quote:

---

Well, you know, what I was refering to by "unchallenged" is how none of you folks can muster up a challenge to the theory's originator, and who issued the offer, apparently as long as there is a level playing field. I can understand much more now why no one in your camp will come out and fight.

---

--I guess that when replying to my post #166, you forgot to click the submit button, my friend.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

quote:

---

--I guess that when replying to my post #166, you forgot to click the submit button, my friend.

---

I don't expect you will get a response. Simple is playing usual YEC game of ignoring anything that one doesn't understand or is inconvenient to one's dogma.

hehFor some reason, I'm feeling highly optimistic right now.

My old thread--a reply I couldn't post on the one that was closed I can see where this would be something you would need to prove it was false. Apparently God didn't leave you much to work with in this department. If you ever make any progress, keep us posted. True science does not need God or His flood to be false. Some of the normal procedures of science must be tapered to stop pretending we are greater than the Creator. Otherwise we will invariably arrive at the wrong conclusions. Try working with God, and you will be a lot further ahead. If you perceived the column as a record of things evolving from their little selves, and it's imagined order in the same manner way, you might expect all kinds of things. If we went into the real future, where lions will eat straw like the ox, and went back and tried to explain how lion fossil teeth were used to eat knotted grass, we might encounter a similar problem. Why would the lions seem to be near straw when they died if they didn't eat it? Or, if we go back and look in the past at bees that were in the evolutionist's way of thinking here say, some 80 million years before the plants they were supposed to survive on!(http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/nx/fossils/fossils.html) We need to be careful on assumptions. I would look at the bees as being stingless. (like the ones will be in the future, when nothing will hurt or destroy). And perhaps even wonder if the bees developed stingers as some evolving after the flood? Mosquitoes, the male doesn't suck blood, same thing, what may have caused them to adapt to needing the blood? They do say even man never used to eat meat before the flood. It was a concequence of the event, that apparently forced a change on humans as well. So if we assume we always ate meat, etc. in the old world, we would make some mistakes.
The commencement of life upon Earth certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry or electricity or crystalline grouping of molecules. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of the creation of living creatures.-- First Baron William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, formulator of the second law of thermodynamics