Geological timescale and the flood.

quote:

---

-Creation week rocks?

---

.
.
.
.
. I would lean to pre cambrian, and cambrian.

quote:

---

-Post-creation but pre-flood rocks?

---

.
.
.
.
. I would include all. likely at least up to the KT boundary.

quote:

---

-Flood rocks?

---

.
.
.
.
. I would think these may be hard to distinguish in some cases, from the glacier meltings.

quote:

---

-Post flood rocks?

---

.
.
.
.
. I would think at least all those rocks that 'they think' are less than say 100,000 years old. Possibly some exceptions there.

quote:

---

-Initiation of plate tectonics?

---

.
.
.
. I would go with about 4400 years ago.

quote:

---

-End of major/fast plate tectonics

---

.
.
.
. Also 4400 years ago, remembering that there seems to be still some residual action, and movement there.Edited by simple, : No reason given.Edited by simple, : No reason given.Edited by simple, : neatness

quote:

---

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?

---

They would start moving as part of the big universe state change that happened after the flood. Now, you referenced the 6000 years, in other words, the bible, so I did the same with the big change after the flood. Neither of us can use science on that one to back it up.So, all one can do, is go along with science. For example, we do know that the land masses moved.

quote:

---

Furthermore, why would they stop moving when the reason they move still exists?

---

They never stopped moving totally, but the big movement was over. As for the supposed reason they move, that is conjecture.

No. I was thinking of dates for the stuff near the surface, like glacier melts. Like about the time when man got to North America, and all that sort of thing, and the ice age.Once we get a bit beyond that, the so called dates go wild. But, since I think the whole thing was done in 6000 years, you might suspect how utterly meaningless any of those dates are in reality.If the KT was the flood time, then it would be about 4500 years ago.As for a boundary to tell them, that got skewed by the rapid separation of continents, I think, after the flood. But I am suspicious of the iridium near the KT. That is know to be in the interior of the earth. There was known to be a lot of stuff come up from down there at the flood time.

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

You seem to think you are.

quote:

---

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?

---

That depends on what the world was like back then, and the laws of physics. I think you will discover, that that is actually unknown. If it was as you assume, then you would be correct. Too bad that is all you can do is assume!If it was as the bible talks about, why it would be so different, that our laws simply did not exist as we know tham at all. Look at creation week. The land masses were separated from the waters on a planetary scale. Yet, life was gently put here a few days later, no heat that was any danger to life at all. That can't happen now, as you might suspect.
Neither could a flood, or rapid continental separation.If you want to rest on the old geology maxim, 'The present is the key to the past' you would need to prove it (within reason)

quote:

---

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.

---

Why would we believe that this state was in effect, when there is no evidence of it? No tracks exist that address the state of this universe, and it's laws in the far past. It is all just assumed. I assume that the spiritual component added to the physical one results, and resulted in a very different arrangement, atomically, and fundamentally, which affected everything. As mentioned, the separation of waters from the land, in creation week, no great heat was then produced. That is different.9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

quote:

---

Why would the laws of physics change?

---

They didn't. They would have only come to exist as we were in this universe state. When that was is only assumed!

quote:

---

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?

---

No, I was referring to creation week.Gen 1: 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.Likewise, after the flood, another big event, a rapid separation of the continents, that also did not produce the heat to kill all life. That tells me that the state was still not the present state, at that time. Same with the flood, and the waters above the earth, etc. That could not be in this present state.
My point is that there is no reason to really assume it was this state, and certainly no evidence.

quote:

---

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

---

Easy, until you can demonstrate otherwise. I don't know what about chemistry you think suggests anything of the sort?

quote:

---

Explain light, stars, gravity and radioactivity away then.

---

No need to, we have them here in this state universe, and know a lot about them. Why? How would that apply to some different state??

quote:

---

So magic. Got it. Goddiddit. You have no evidence, Goddidit

---

To our cavemanish level science, it would be very much magic. So?? No more magic than your universe in a little soup speck, or such. We need to separate fantasy from what we actually know, and that does not include the state of the future or past.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

OK, I will be careful not to vary from the nonsensical gibberish that the forum, especially you are limited to, - that there was and will be only this natural. No problem. You have lost the ability to pretend it is science, so I care not.Welcome to your utterly baseless religion, and enjoy the mod privilege of being able to pretend you could back it up. -Long as no one can post anything else.Cheers.Edited by simple, : No reason given.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

That was a thread that I agreed to participate in, despite unbalanced mods, under the condition, when it got shut down, it would be finished at a neutral site. I went, and opened a thread there, but funny thing you never showed up.
I was posturing for the final thrusts there, and was robbed, so had to win by default.

You are right, my ideas are not creation science. No need to run to a mod for that, I could have told you. Creation science is a loser, really, I prefer to win.

It doesn't give me the chance, don't be fooled. Some mods like Ned do not let me express my well founded opinions, that agree with actual science and evidence.
That is because it had to involve more than this present nature. That is something they can't argue against, or provide science against, so the only recourse is to stop me from speaking. I offer Ned's latest threats as evidence.

I already have foundations for my opinions, but there are not the natural only foundations that you assume extend to infinity and beyond for no apparent reason.
Those are the foundations that you mean, yet you lack for your own assumptions.Science of the present nature, cannot extend to infinity and beyond, and it is there that the creation debate really lies.When I touch on a topic, it is with this in mind, so to be limited by only the natural is to miss the heart and soul and crux of the real debate.If the debate were here and now, concerning things that were demonstrably physical only, that would be different. If we were discussing present rates of continental separation, decay, light speed, how present laws now work, etc. But what the creation debate is actually doing is going way beyond this known, observed state, and into what is believed to be applicable in the future, or past. That is NOT science, or known.You act as if I do not accept this known nature, and that I must prove some other nature in the past, when you can't prove this one was there. A double standard.Therefore, in the science areas, under your rules, I cannot speak, let's not pretend otherwise.You insist on assuming and believing without proof this present natural can fly to infinity and beyond. The basis, and foundation of YOUR claims needs to be solidly supported.Since that can't happen, I don't see where you get off saying that everyone else must do it?? Especially when you limit your criteria to things that are physical, and present nature. They failed you, and are not what I claim existed, to limit all conversation to that is to be religiously narrowminded.

I would like to respond, but you may notice I am under a gag order here.

False. I gave a short answer of my opinion, as a creationist, that was not meant to be in depth. I have looked at the points, and evidences in depth, however. That would have been brought out, if any point was fleshed out. But, as you can see, there is a gag order here, so only one side of the debate can be heard.Edited by simple, : No reason given.

What really happened is that your opinion that physical science applied to the far past is disqualified by reason of utter lack of evidence. So, I am being polite here, and about to leave you to your PO dreaming.I can't discuss how, since there is the gag order.

There is not yet a gag on posting, only about talking about the ace up my sleeve, namely, your inability to do anything but assume a same past state.As for the post you mentioned, that was a teaser. It was meant to get a response. It was meant to post my opinion, and see if anyone would ask why I had such outrageous ideas. Then, I would respond with the overwhelming logic, and stark facts about what we actually do and do not know, fleshing out the points. I had no intention of starting off with a manifesto, or thesis.