Noah's Ark 2004

Brock says:

No, I understand It perfectly, much better than you.

You keep telling me you have proof, when all you have is some picture that means nothing to me. Isnt it funny how you can believe in some colourful picture that some random scientist draws, and then claim that you are the authority on teh subject.

Even though I know everything about everything, i choose not to show my understanding, and instead make out as though im keeping it simple, or dumbing it down for the people who keep trying to explain things to me when they dont realise that they cant explain anything to me caus i know absolutely everything and will not allow myself to be demeaned by having a non-believer actually explain something to me. Like when i like to slip in misconceptions into my reference to evolution or the way i like to make statements about plate tectonics that show the amount of plate tectonics you could find in a children's science book. Actually thats all I used to read as a child, creationist science books.

By the way, im gay.


Thanks Brock! :H :sunglasse

 

Thank you, that does make sense.

 

So easily duped are the masses.

All he did was show you pictures of magnetic striping.
Fine.

Then, for absolutely no reason other than the evolutionists imagination a really LOooooooong period of time is assigned to the stripes.

More on that later.

 

That's ok, little buddy. I never expected you to actually admit anything. You just keep going around and around.

Eventually everyone will realize that you are just wasting their time and stop playing with you. Like me. :sunglasse

 

Brocktoon -

The study of plate-techtonics has nothing to do with 'evolutionists'. As you call them. You simply call anyone who disagrees with your less-than-scientific descriptions of things as 'evolutionists'. Despite the fact that nearly all scientists, and rational people who have truly studied the process, believe that evolution occured doesn't make any of them 'evolutionists'. Few could care lesss about this debate and therefore have no reason to choose sides.

The size of the bands can be determined by many, many measurements.
1)You can measure the actual drift, which they do.
2)You can measure the time between bands - since we have a quite complete catalog of all polaraity shifts based on data collected around the world.
3)You can even date the rock as you get further from the rift and measure sedimentation deposits on it.

 

PS: Maybe he did just put a chart in, but it is a widely accepted illustration that can be found referenced by dozens of geology sites and supported by scientists who study volcanos, the ocean, cartography, etc.


Where is your contrary evidence? Where are your supporting scientists (without motives)? The best you can do is attempt to name-call the evidence out of existence. Very christian of ya.

 

Pop.. you are correct to say that super-slow continental drift theory has nothing to do with evolutionism.

In fact. Continental Drift was something Evolutionists were caught surprised by (despite now fake acting as if its 'theirs').

Further to that.. Dramatic fluctuations in Polarity have stunned everyone and no one saw that coming either.
Once again, Evolutionists (and Superslow theorists) have pretended 'as if' it all fits into their theory.

But yes, although it supports the Genesis model, Continental Drift and Polarity fluctuations do not necessarily have any bearing on whether Fish morphed into dinosaurs who then morphed into Budgees.

However..

Evolutionists have needed the billions of years in order for their theory to stay alive. (so they think).
In that sense they are desperate to taking shocking Creationist discoveries like Continental drift and simply assign a lonnnnnng age period to it.

 

Of course, Ultra-Slow Theory Geologists will simply assign long periods of time to these stripes.
They have to.

There is no reason to, other than just simply saying 'Oh yes.. that happened over 10s of thousands of years."

This is often based on nothing more than the principle of 'least astonishment'.

A fascinating articles here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3397.asp

and in particular what interests me:

A decade ago, Prévot and Coe (and colleagues) reported in three papers the evidence they had found of extremely rapid changes of the Earth’s magnetic field recorded in lava flows at Steens Mountain in southern Oregon (USA).3,4,5 Scientists regard Steens Mountain as the best record of a magnetic reversal because the volcano spewed out 56 separate flows during that episode, each of these rock layers providing time-lapse snapshots of the reversal. Within one particular flow, Prévot and Coe discovered that rock toward the top showed a different magnetic orientation than did rock lower down. They interpreted this to mean that the field shifted about 3° a day during the few days it took the single layer to cool.6 Such a rate of change is about 500 times faster than that seen in direct measurements of the field today, so,

"most geomagnetists dismissed the claim by applying the principle of least astonishment — ‘it was easier to believe that these lava flows did not accurately record the changes in the earth’s magnetic field than to believe that there was something fundamentally wrong with the conventional wisdom of the day’"

 

Exactly, you jsut proved why evolution existed and that every other post youve written has come out of your arse! haha! sucked in

 

Wow.. that coming from an Australian no less.

 

Brocktoon:

There is evidence from a variety of sources that the earth is 4.55 billion years old (+/-1%).

The oldest rocks on earth date to 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old using SEVERAL radioactive dating methods. Within those rocks there are mineral deposits that are 4.1 to 4.2 billion years old. Another dating technique is to measure the occurance of three isotopes of radioactive lead which are found on earth and in the solar system. You can also get an approximation of the age of earth by studing the stratigrafy or layers, of sediments that have been deposited and comparing that with deposition rates. You can also, as previously mentioned, study the fluctuations in magnetic polarity. Another dating method (though not precise) is to model gravitational forces which were responsible for creating the early solar system. Another method is to study the long chains of families of life which lived and died on this planet.

ALL of these methods seem to support each other. None are exact, after all we are talking about events over 4 billion years old, but it is a WIDE body of knowledge which has allowed us to precisely date the earth to within a 1% margin of error (very good statistically).

'Evolutionists' as you like to call us are not some sect of conspirators as you'd have us protrayed. In fact many of us beleive in God, beleive in a divine hand in creation. We just don't ignore scientific evidence which shows us what took place to make life what it is. Evolution says nothing of how life came to be or what force might propel life to adapt over time into increasingly complex structures.

The church burned people at the stake for suggesting the earth was round. it is fear that drives men to hold on to control at all costs. Did that revalation destroy the church? No. Is that what those scientists were trying to do? No. WIll evolution destroy the church? No. Is that what scientists today are trying to do? No. The Pope even told us in 1996 that evolution is "more than a theory" and that it can be "compatible" with christian beleifs. Of course this assumes that the beleiver is able to broaden his understanding of God's involvement and read Genesis as the parable it was written as (ie: God didn't ACCTUALLY spin us off on a pottery wheel with his 'hands').

 

Too many topics to respond in one post Pop but I want to quick reply to the last one:

Genesis presents itself as a real account.
It is not a 'Parable'.
Jesus refers to it as an actual event.
His Lineage is traced back to Adam.

The Pope was NOT suggesting or implying Genesis is a Parable either.
You added that yourself.

 

Ok then, we'll have to disagree on that. I see the Genesis story as a beautifully written parable or a completely nonsensical story. I would rather beleive the author knew what he was doing.

No your are right, the Pope didn't say Genesis is a parable the thing he said are in quotation marks and the rest paraphrased. I drew the conclusion I did because a 100% literal translation of Genesis is at odds with what is accepted by all sciences as what occured to produce life on earth. If this knowledge is "compatible" with christian beleifs as the pope suggests, the a less-than-literal interpretation is needed.

 

You must see Genesis as a terrible, awkward and bizzaro parable?

When taken literally (which is exactly how it presents itself) you find no problem with sciences.
That of course, is the debate.

You seem to think the world evolved and wish that were scientific.
or you want to believe that its 'Scientific' i suppose.

You will just 'assert' that it is?

 

well thats all from where u stand isnt it. your saying that non beleivers want science. (maybe youve mixed up 'science' with order and structure?) atheism believes beleivers -want- to believe in somehting, as atheism is not an easy concept, emotionally. we beleive that most humans desire order and structure and tahts why they create religions.
humans want to believe things. atheism came about when people stopped following these meaningless desires for false but comforting truths. But, you obvisouly have a different oppinion which is simillar, but different, and turned around. no way to tell whos right in the end

 

StonedBill.

You are Exhibit A as to reasons why Australians should not be allowed to smoke up and post any 'thoughts' anywhere.

Im pressed for time but I was trying to point out the failure of simply 'asserting' a position, then buttressing your position with your assertion.

(One Claims) that Evolutionism or UltraLong Dates are 'Scientific Facts'.
They support this by asserting its true because its a 'Scientific Fact'
Therefore (they suppose)
Any further discussion should continue 'as if' they just demonstrated and ended all question of it.

Here now - this discussion is debating whether or not long ages assigned to Rocks (or anything) are 'Scientific' or not.

That IS the debate.

 

I don't see the world as scientific any more than I see it as religious. Science attempts to define the links on a causality chain using logic while religion attempts to define purpose, meaning and morals using faith, parables, and rituals. I see little corralary between the two. Neither could be describe as a good 'world view'.

Every major religion and culture throughout history has had what can be acalled a creation myth. These stories serve to center and individual in a mysterious and magical world. The contents of the christian creation myth were probably seen in a vision (however devinely inspired) by a man with no scientific understandign of mass, energy, planets, stars, life processes, etc. etc. The VERY best he could do is record the events as he saw him through his limited perception and I think the basic chain of events in Genesis is amazingly accurate when compared to modern understanding. Light did indeed separate from darkness, life did indeed emerge from the mud, the waters did indeeed BRING FORTH life as BOTH evolution and genesis suggest.
Now did days and nights pass before the sun was created? Well, no... because day is defined as a cycle of the sun. The sun had to exist for a 'day' to pass. Did Adam acctually name each animal on earth? With what time and with what language? Who did he talk to in this language? Did Eve really come from a rib, or is this a parable which teaches us how the sexes are related/correlated. Did she really eat of a tree, or did the 'knowledge of good and evil' cause judgement and sin to be invented (without a tree).

As a 'true' story it has many holes. As a lesson-carrying parable (as lessons were often carried int he time) it holds tremendous accuracy, heavy moral lessons and gives us a sense of understanding in big universe.

 

the word we need here is "myth" --- not in the sense of falsehood or fairy tale, but in the sense of a truth deeper than mere fact...
ymmv...

 

I dont need that compromised definition popularised by Joseph Campbell.
The Ark might be a parable or it might be a fact but Im not going to think Im appealing to both truths by enacting the Joseph Campbell plea bargain.

Hey im up too late.
Gnite

 

I've always liked the Noah's Ark story when I was a kid... there are a lot of greatly illustrated versions of that story...