Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,872 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,077,272
Pageviews Today: 1,510,471Threads Today: 472Posts Today: 7,189
11:27 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The earth is NOT 6000 years old.

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28880109
United States
12/02/2012 02:34 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
My purpose on earth is to disprove god. I'm sure of it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140

Maybe 50 years from now, maybe twenty years from now, maybe tomorrow,
when you suddenly find yourself dead,
if somehow, by chance, hypothetically speaking you understand...
you somehow found yourself standing before God,
you certainly wouldn't want to be with Him
but would much prefer to be far apart from Him,
right?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28880109
United States
12/02/2012 02:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
[link to kgov.com]
-
User ID: 1547099
United States
12/02/2012 02:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 1547099


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 02:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Hell does not exist, but if, in some magical universe where things you believe and things that are observable exist. I should rather not an unjust god, no. Your god is cruel, and by all accounts unnecessarily vein.

And trust me, that I will be back in about 20 minutes to completely destroy your volcanic theories that rely on pure fantasy, as well as defy physics to the extreem of the definition. Do not think you've gotten away with that link, or the YouTube links which I already explained were of no credibility. The public education system doesn't force us to believe anything fool. They present their evidence, and at no point do they put a gun to our head. Wow. I'll be back in a minute....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 02:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 1547099


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
 Quoting: - 1547099



You are correct, the evidence is there. But it is to the contrary of how you think ash got into the geocolumn. I will break down the science when I return give me a minute with your idiocy.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25050963
United States
12/02/2012 02:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
YAWN
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 03:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Here's the summary of how creationists have distorted facts about dating, taken things out of context to arrive at forced conclusion, and then then it into dogma.

People pick and chose what they here. For instance,bold and daring scientists tried to take C-14 dating to before 30,000 years ago using new techniques and had all sorts of trouble. The creationists then claimed that all dating techniques don’t work. Meanwhile, the scientist mostly gave up on pre-60,000 dates with C-14 but managed to extend into that range between 30,000 and 50,000 K with good samples. It is also the case that a “radiocarbon” year is not the same as a calendar year and there is a calibration one must do, and we fight over the calibration methods. But the method still works. It’s like car-jocks fighting over engine capacity vs. horsepower vs. torque as the best way to compare engines (sort of).

In another instance, it was discovered that there is a category of volcanic ash that you could not date with Potassium-Argon dating. There were lots of samples dated by in retrospect the samples were all wrong and it did not seem easy or possible to figure out when the system was working vs. not .

That confusion lasted for about two or three years, when a) it was determined that certain ashes could not be dated and other’s could, but those that could not be dated could be easily identified (and still used as markers); the, b) they figured out how to date the ‘difficult’ ashes anyway; and c) the new technique came with a nifty advantage: The lab results would tell you both the date and whether or not the date was any good.

In each of these cases, creationists picked a scientific argument, reported only parts of it, used the fact that there was an argument to totally discredit the entire field, and when confronted with the truth, punted. And by “punted” I mean “lied.”

(And that’s why people are so mad at the Creation museum … THAT’s the guy who did most of this … same person, same organization, same web sites, same funding sources, etc. etc.)
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 1547099


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
 Quoting: - 1547099


You're not even addressing what I was even talking about. You're talking about what YOU want to talk about as if it is an effective counter to my argument. WHAT I SAID WAS "water did not jet out of the mid-atlantic ridge to produce the amounts of water necessary for the so-called great flood.

NOTHING about columns of ash.

This is the very definition of strawman. You cannot address the actual subject because to do so would disprove your argument so you have to create a strawman to attack instead because you can beat the strawman. But you cannot beat reality, you can only insanely argue against it.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/02/2012 04:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
...



The ash is a result of the volcanoes that were going off at the time of the global flood when water jetted out of the mid-atlantic ridge causing the continental shelf sprint that pushed up the parallel mountain ranges. This is not my personal belief but is accepted by creation geologists the world over.

I'll try and find you some links that show this and more:

[link to www.detectingdesign.com]

[link to www.pseudepigrapha.com]

[link to www.tasc-creationscience.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

I believe this guy has a bit different view

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: - 1547099


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
 Quoting: - 1547099


You're not even addressing what I was even talking about. You're talking about what YOU want to talk about as if it is an effective counter to my argument. WHAT I SAID WAS "water did not jet out of the mid-atlantic ridge to produce the amounts of water necessary for the so-called great flood.

NOTHING about columns of ash.

This is the very definition of strawman. You cannot address the actual subject because to do so would disprove your argument so you have to create a strawman to attack instead because you can beat the strawman. But you cannot beat reality, you can only insanely argue against it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



okay so, regarding ash in the Geo-column:

first is an explanation on the Geo-column itself, because I know you do not understand whatsoever what it is:
[link to pubs.usgs.gov]

Next, we have a complete breakdown of this theory, and why it makes zero scientific sense, with nearly one hundred respected references from real scientists, Notice how your
article is supported with facts from only a handful of pseudoscientists?
: [link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

You've in fact, posted two different views, when in reality, there numerous different ideas about the great within creationism..Why? well, because creationism does not even agree with itself on the pseudoscience.

Now, you say "The evidence stands", yet here in full view we the actual science that breaks it down step by step, discounting every line of it's pseudo-scientific babble.
so clearly, 'The evidence' does not stand where you had s thought it did. I'm curious how well you will sleep tonight, knowing that the dogmatic propagandists of creationism drivel have been feeding you invented 'facts' that do not check out when held up to a magnifying glass.

What now?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/02/2012 04:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
creationism however dies even easier, all you have to do is observe EVOLUTION HAPPENING TODAY. this is observable, it is real and how can it be discredited? give up the bible worship


[link to www.wired.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
...


"when water jetted outof the mid-atlantic ridge at the time of the great flood?" Really? You're really going to say something THAT patently ridiculous without even THINKING about it BEFORE you say it? You think that's whre the water for the "great flood" (that never happened) came from? It just bubbled right on up because god turned on the bath faucet of the oceans a couple hundred years after he created us to punish us, is that what you're trying to say?

The first website in that list is one of the best examples of pseudoscience quackery I have seen in a long time. The author is a certain Dr. Sean D. Pitan, M.D. Sounds prestigious right? Dr.? M.D.? He is a medical doctor and I would trust his opinion on geology about as much as I would trust and astronomers theories on evolutionary biology. They are just not educationally and intellectually equipped to make an educated statement on that subject.

But Edward Bernays proved something to us all in the 1950's...You don't have to be a "real doctor" but people will believe you more if thy call you "Dr so-and-so." So this Dr. Pitman can seem like a legitimate scientist to a christian whose faith guided them to drop out of high school at age 16 because public secular education is demonic, or those poor completely uneducated folks who were given the unfortunate treatment of "home-schooling" which, when coming from an evangelical perspective equals "no-schooling."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
 Quoting: - 1547099


You're not even addressing what I was even talking about. You're talking about what YOU want to talk about as if it is an effective counter to my argument. WHAT I SAID WAS "water did not jet out of the mid-atlantic ridge to produce the amounts of water necessary for the so-called great flood.

NOTHING about columns of ash.

This is the very definition of strawman. You cannot address the actual subject because to do so would disprove your argument so you have to create a strawman to attack instead because you can beat the strawman. But you cannot beat reality, you can only insanely argue against it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



okay so, regarding ash in the Geo-column:

first is an explanation on the Geo-column itself, because I know you do not understand whatsoever what it is:
[link to pubs.usgs.gov]

Next, we have a complete breakdown of this theory, and why it makes zero scientific sense, with nearly one hundred respected references from real scientists, Notice how your
article is supported with facts from only a handful of pseudoscientists?
: [link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

You've in fact, posted two different views, when in reality, there numerous different ideas about the great within creationism..Why? well, because creationism does not even agree with itself on the pseudoscience.

Now, you say "The evidence stands", yet here in full view we the actual science that breaks it down step by step, discounting every line of it's pseudo-scientific babble.
so clearly, 'The evidence' does not stand where you had s thought it did. I'm curious how well you will sleep tonight, knowing that the dogmatic propagandists of creationism drivel have been feeding you invented 'facts' that do not check out when held up to a magnifying glass.

What now?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


What now? I'm an atheist, not a creationist. You're still talking bloody nonexistent water being emitted from deep within the bowels of the earth by the power of god to create the mythical great flood. You're using this ridiculous claim of "magical water from nowhere pushing up with great force from beneath the mid-atlantic ridge" as a source of what caused the volcanic eruptions which led to the deposit of ash within the atmosphere.

There is no more water on earth today than there was 5 million years ago and no more than there was almost 14 million years ago. There has never been enough water IN EXISTENCE to cover the entire surface of the earth. Ever. The "great flood" never occurred.

This is the very definition of pseudoscience. Using one scientific fact which has been transformed through either intentional misinterpretation or plain ignorance into a strawman to attack another anti-religious concept.

You argument is a basic "post ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Your logic =

"Volcanoes erupted a lot during the early years of earth

AND

My faith tells me that the entire surface of the planet was covered with water at one point as a result of the punishment of god.

AND

Ken Ham say dinosaurs existed at the same time as mankind

THEREFORE

The volcanic eruptions must have happened at a time DURING OR AFTER the great flood

THERFORE

The volcanic eruptions were caused by the force of the great flood."

It's bullshit, can't you see that?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/02/2012 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
I think you may be a bit confused, and hadn't actually read the links, or the post at all.

They discount the creationist theories not endorse them.
did you read any of this?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/02/2012 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
...



The evidence stands. You are not even looking at it, only trying to censor evidence based on a rigged credential test. Sources are sited from those who are qualified. So anyone can write a paper or article as long as they site qualified sources. There are many who do not agree with evotard geology. That is how the ash got in the geocolumn.
 Quoting: - 1547099


You're not even addressing what I was even talking about. You're talking about what YOU want to talk about as if it is an effective counter to my argument. WHAT I SAID WAS "water did not jet out of the mid-atlantic ridge to produce the amounts of water necessary for the so-called great flood.

NOTHING about columns of ash.

This is the very definition of strawman. You cannot address the actual subject because to do so would disprove your argument so you have to create a strawman to attack instead because you can beat the strawman. But you cannot beat reality, you can only insanely argue against it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



okay so, regarding ash in the Geo-column:

first is an explanation on the Geo-column itself, because I know you do not understand whatsoever what it is:
[link to pubs.usgs.gov]

Next, we have a complete breakdown of this theory, and why it makes zero scientific sense, with nearly one hundred respected references from real scientists, Notice how your
article is supported with facts from only a handful of pseudoscientists?
: [link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

You've in fact, posted two different views, when in reality, there numerous different ideas about the great within creationism..Why? well, because creationism does not even agree with itself on the pseudoscience.

Now, you say "The evidence stands", yet here in full view we the actual science that breaks it down step by step, discounting every line of it's pseudo-scientific babble.
so clearly, 'The evidence' does not stand where you had s thought it did. I'm curious how well you will sleep tonight, knowing that the dogmatic propagandists of creationism drivel have been feeding you invented 'facts' that do not check out when held up to a magnifying glass.

What now?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


What now? I'm an atheist, not a creationist. You're still talking bloody nonexistent water being emitted from deep within the bowels of the earth by the power of god to create the mythical great flood. You're using this ridiculous claim of "magical water from nowhere pushing up with great force from beneath the mid-atlantic ridge" as a source of what caused the volcanic eruptions which led to the deposit of ash within the atmosphere.

There is no more water on earth today than there was 5 million years ago and no more than there was almost 14 million years ago. There has never been enough water IN EXISTENCE to cover the entire surface of the earth. Ever. The "great flood" never occurred.

This is the very definition of pseudoscience. Using one scientific fact which has been transformed through either intentional misinterpretation or plain ignorance into a strawman to attack another anti-religious concept.

You argument is a basic "post ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Your logic =

"Volcanoes erupted a lot during the early years of earth

AND

My faith tells me that the entire surface of the planet was covered with water at one point as a result of the punishment of god.

AND

Ken Ham say dinosaurs existed at the same time as mankind

THEREFORE

The volcanic eruptions must have happened at a time DURING OR AFTER the great flood

THERFORE

The volcanic eruptions were caused by the force of the great flood."

It's bullshit, can't you see that?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The links I provided do not state these claims whatsoever, and lead me to believe that you didn't so much as even glance through the post (which was short) I do not enjoy being attacked by other atheists, while proving with facts why the creationism story does not make scientific sense.

but if you were just to lazy to check the links, as i'm not sure everyone was. Here is the text from another link, i'll just post the entire thing.


Dr Walker basically breaks up the geology of the world into 4 groups, all of which formed in the last 6000 years. A brief summary of his units is:

Creation Event - forms most of the earth, giving it a very large volume of rock, but is insignificant to geology since they are all buried by Group 3.
Lost World Era - between creation and flood. Negligible rocks produced and can be ignored.
Flood Event - deposits a large amount of rock covering all the creation rock. All deposition occurs in the first 60 days of the flood (possibly up to 150 days long).
New World Era - negligible rock produced. Should be recognisable since fossils present should be similar to modern animals.
The biggest problem with Dr Walker's model is that he has started with the Bible story, made a model out of his interpretation of it, and then tries to force the data from the real world fit his model. This is the exact opposite of how science works. The first step is to collect data and then create your model to fit the data. Also, a scientist must be prepared to change a model if new evidence is found that does not fit the old model. Dr Walker has further removed his model from the realms of science by admitting that he will never accept any evidence that contradicts his Bible-based model [1]. He appears more interested in imposing a pre-ordained framework on geology than he is in understanding it.

As damning as Dr Walker's lack of objectivity with regard to the evidence is I will move on since the real test of any model is how well it works.

Even a brief look at his criteria shows that almost every rock found in the world will be considered a "Flood" rock. When compared to the complexity seen in the world through modern geology, Dr Walker's model appears childish. Some people prefer simplicity, but the fact remains that despite the complexity of modern geology, those who study it as their profession can understand it. As a tool, modern geology is highly successful at finding the oil, coal, and metal ores that are necessary for our modern society, thus proving its worth as a science. Since Dr Walker's model portrays all rocks as being due to one event, how would he be able to differentiate the rocks and know where to look for ore-bodies such as porphyry copper or volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits? These sorts of orebodies do not just occur anywhere. They are strongly constrained by their geological province, which is linked to the plate tectonic models of the Earth. Dr Walker's model does not allow for plate tectonics and province recognition, and would therefore be useless in mineral exploration or any form of scientific investigation.

THE INCONSISTENCIES IN DR WALKER’S MODEL

One major problem with Dr Walker's model is that he does not use it consistently. Dr Walker has stated that the fossils at Riversleigh were not the result of the flood and they would be from the New World Era. [2] The reason he states this is because, according to his model, it is impossible for the fossils produced during the flood to be related to the animals that now inhabit the continents, since the pre-flood continents and their faunas would have no resemblance to the modern continents. Since both the fossil fauna in the rocks at Riversleigh and the modern Australian fauna are dominated by marsupials, Dr Walker concludes that the rocks at Riversleigh must be New World Era. However, classifying the rocks at Riversleigh as New World Era ignores the geological evidence such as:

The Riversleigh locality contains abundant fossils.
The rocks that contain the fossils are an erosional remnant of the Wyaaba Cycle of the Karumba Basin. [3]
The Karumba Basin is very large, almost as big as the Great Artesian Basin (GAB).
The limestones containing the Riversleigh fossils occur at the top of flat mesa-like hills. [4]
All four of these criteria would fit Dr Walker's model as flood deposits eroded by the floodwaters as they receded off the continents. However, this evidence is ignored. Therefore Dr Walker needs to outline when the geological information is important for deciding where rocks fit into his model, and when the geology is to be ignored in favour of the fossil evidence.

THE GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN (GAB)

Dr Walker attempts to show that his model works for the GAB, however, in an attempt to make it fit his model he only presented some very simple evidence and ignored all the evidence that contradicted his interpretation.

PROBLEM 1 - ENVIRONMENT OF DEPOSITION

Dr Walker wants all rocks to be deposited in a single event (Noah's Flood). However, studying rocks in detail shows that they are deposited in a variety of environments. I will illustrate by using the Eromanga Basin, which is part of the GAB. It displays a pattern of rock deposition that is the same as in the whole GAB, but by focussing on only one part of the GAB I can reduce the number of geological formation names that are used within the GAB. A summary of the geology of the GAB [5] is given below, with the oldest formations at the bottom, and the youngest at the top.

Formation Name

Thickness (m)

Environment of Deposition

Winton Formation
500

Fresh water rivers

Mackunda Formation
100

Marine

Wilgunya Subgroup
770

"

Longsight Sandstone
~70

"

Gilbert River Formation
50

"

Cadna-owie Formation
60

"

Hooray Sandstone
150

"

Ronlow beds
~90

Fresh water rivers

Blantyre Sandstone
~50

"

Injune Creek Group
470

"

Evergreen Formation
75

"

Precipice Sandstone
120

"

As you can see from the table above, the Eromanga Basin changes its environment of deposition several times. It starts terrestrial at the base, changes to marine in the middle, and finishes as terrestrial again. The basin is not one simple event as Dr Walker would like to portray.

Also, in this example Dr Walker fails to mention that the GAB is only a thin layer of sedimentary rock overlying other basins that would also have been deposited during Noah's Flood according to his model. Dr Walker just refers to them as "Basement Rock" and does not try to explain them. Even though the GAB is several kilometres thick in places, it is a relatively minor feature compared to some of the basins that were deposited before it. For example, in the central Queensland area the GAB overlies the Galilee Basin, which in turn overlies the Drummond Basin. The Galilee Basin is about 200m thick and mainly deposited by fresh water rivers, [5] and the Drummond Basin is over 12 km thick [6] and was dominated by terrestrial deposition but had several marine incursions. Finally the Drummond Basin overlies the Anakie Inlier. [7] The less deformed parts of the Anakie Inlier were obviously deposited in a marine environment since they contain abundant marine fossils. The exact thickness is not known, but it would be kilometres thick.

Even the above simplification of the geology of central Queensland is much more complex than you would expect from Dr Walker's model, particularly since there is evidence for many changes of the environment of deposition. It could not have been produced by one simple flood event.

PROBLEM 2 - INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN LINES OF EVIDENCE

Dr Walker, in several places, describes the first stage of the flood as "intense" and "severe" with regard to geological processes such as erosion and deposition, and claims life would have been "catastrophically destroyed". The intense geological processes are presumably invoked to explain the deposition of all the geological units, but how does Dr Walker explain the dinosaur footprints near the top of the sequence? Does Dr Walker think that the dinosaurs swam on the surface in an environment that was catastrophically destroying all life, while below them severe currents were depositing 15km of sediments? Then towards the end did the dinosaurs swim down to the bottom of the worldwide ocean and have a stampede on the sea floor? It is obvious that footprints in the Winton Formation in Larks Quarry near Winton totally destroy his model.

CONCLUSION

Even in a simple area like the GAB Dr Walker's model does not explain the geology seen. When an area with more complex geology is examined the failure of Dr Walker's model is even worse. Any geologist who has done fieldwork would be able to think of geological examples that could only be explained by old Earth theories. I will use my latest project in the Yarrol Province of central Queensland to demonstrate how Dr Walker's model fails to explain areas of complex geology.

DR WALKER'S MODEL AND THE YARROL PROVINCE

The diagram and table below give a very simplified version of the geology of the Yarrol Province. [8]



[U= Unconformities]

Unit No.

Unit Name

Depositional Environment

Thickness

1

Capella Creek Group and Erebus beds Shallow Marine
~2000m

2

Mount Morgan Trondhjemite Granitic Intrusion
N/A

3

Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formations Dominantly terrestrial with some shallow marine
~2400m

4

Mount Alma Formation Deep Marine
~4000m

5

Rockhampton Group Shallow Marine
2000m

6

Youlambie Conglomerate Terrestrial
~1500m

7

Bouldercombe Complex Granitic Intrusion
N/A

8

Precipice Sandstone Terrestrial
~50m

9

Stanwell Coal Measures Initially marine but becomes terrestrial.
Not known

A comparison with Dr Walker's model shows that there are several things to note about the geology of the Yarrol Province.

It's large. The approximate volume is 350,000km3 of rock, easily fitting Dr Walker's "Continental" scale
of geological features.
It contains abundant pyroclastic volcanics.
It contains abundant fossils.
Given the large size of the Yarrol Province it could be classified as either part of the "Creation" event or the "Flood" event. However, according to Dr Walker, abundant pyroclastic volcanics and fossils are inconsistent with his interpretation of the "Creation" event. Therefore, using these three criteria it is obvious from Dr Walker's model that the Yarrol Province was deposited during the flood, and all ~10km of sedimentary rock were deposited in the first 60 days of the flood.

However, when you look in detail at the geology of the Yarrol Province you see that it is impossible for it to fit into such a small time frame.

PROBLEM 1 - GRANITES

As you can see in the diagram above, the sequence of rocks are intruded by two granites, the Mount Morgan Trondhjemite (Unit 2) and the Bouldercombe Complex (Unit 7). There are many more, but these are all that is needed for my demonstration of the failings of Dr Walker's model.

From geological evidence it is obvious that these granites were two separate events. The Mount Morgan Trondhjemite intrudes the Capella Creek Group (part of Unit 1), the granite is then cooled and unroofed (exposed to the surface by erosion).

The Mount Morgan Trondhjemite and Capella Creek Group are then overlain by the Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formations (Unit 3), Mount Alma Formations (Unit 4), Rockhampton Group (Unit 5), and Youlambie Conglomerate (Unit 6). Clasts of the Mount Morgan Trondhjemite are commonly found in the basal beds of the Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formation.

After deposition of the Youlambie Conglomerate the Yarrol Province is intruded by the second granite, the Bouldercombe Complex (Unit 7). This granite also intrudes the Capella Creek Group and the Mount Alma Formation, but this would have been too difficult to show on the diagram. Once again the granite is cooled and unroofed and then overlain by the Precipice Sandstone (Unit 8) and Stanwell Coal Measures (Unit 9).

The important point of this is that there are two entirely separate granitic intrusion events in the Yarrol Province. One granite is intruded, cools, crystallises and is unroofed. It is then overlain by several kilometres of sedimentary rocks that are then intruded by another granite that also cools, crystallises and is unroofed. This second granite is then also covered by sedimentary rocks.

The problem here is that granites take a long time to cool down. Even a recent creationist paper [9] noted that it would take as short a period of time as 3500 years to cool down a granite. If they could have found a quicker time I am sure that they would have used it. Also, the granites mentioned above are much bigger than the example used in the creationist paper, however, I will use 3500 years as the minimum time needed to cool the granites. There are two entirely separate intrusions in the Yarrol Province and both would have required 3500 years to cool, and both intrude into and are overlain by rocks that Dr Walker would classify as flood deposits. Therefore, Dr Walker wants to force 7000 years of granite cooling into a period of 60 days. More time would be needed to emplace the granites and unroof them, but clearly, even the time needed to cool the granites greatly exceeds Dr Walker's time frames.

Dr Walker tries to claim that the granites could have been cooled quickly by water, [10] but this does not solve the problem. Granites are always coarsely crystalline rocks. If molten rock is cooled quickly the result is a fine-grained lava-like rock or even a volcanic glass. There is no way to cool molten rock quickly enough and still have it produce intrusions with a granitic texture.

PROBLEM 2 - ALLOCHTHONOUS BLOCKS AND MICROFOSSILS

["Allochthonous" is just a big word for "no longer in place."]

The Mount Alma Formation (Unit 4) was deposited in a deep marine environment, in water depths between 750m and 1000m. Fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and mudstone dominate the unit. The siltstones contain microscopic fossils called radiolarians that can only settle out of water in very quiet conditions. The microscopic fossils are very fragile and some possess very delicate spines that project from the fossil. There are also some coarse-grained units in the formation caused by submarine avalanches (mass flows). Near the base of the Mount Alma Formation are large allochthonous blocks of rock from the underlying Erebus beds (part of Unit 1). It is thought that the geological event that caused the unconformity at the base of the Mount Alma Formation lifted up parts of the Erebus beds and caused large blocks to break off the raised areas and slide into the deep marine environments. Most of the blocks are relatively small and are about 100m long, however, some are over 2km long.

Dr Walker interprets the unconformity that unroofed the Mount Morgan Tonalite to be caused by the very strong water currants of the flood [10] and would therefore probably assume that the large blocks of rock were moved by the water currents.

It is impossible to have a water current strong enough to move blocks of rock over 2km long, yet gentle enough to allow microscopic fossils to settle out of water. Also, despite their delicate nature, the microscopic fossils are not broken, indicating that they could not have been deposited by "intense" and "severe" flood conditions.

PROBLEM 3 - REEFS

The Rockhampton Group (Unit 5) was deposited in a shallow, warm, marine environment, and patch reefs have been identified within the unit. [11] The patch reefs range from small mounds 4-10m in diameter and 1m thick, to large complexes more than 50m diameter and 7m thick. It is known that the reefs are preserved in the place in which they formed since their bases are gradational with the underlying sedimentary rocks. The reefs contain an abundant and varied fauna and would have had a complex ecosystem broadly similar to modern reefs.

These reefs with their complex ecosystems would have taken years or decades to form. Not the days required by Dr Walker's model.

PROBLEM 4 - FOOTPRINTS

Dinosaur footprints are relatively common in the Precipice Sandstone (Unit 8). Once again Dr Walker has the problem that dinosaurs would have had to swim in ocean currants strong enough to deposit 10km of sedimentary rock and move blocks of rock over 2km long, and then towards the end when deposition is almost over they would have had to swim down to, and walk around on, the sea floor.

CONCLUSION

Areas of complex geology such as the Yarrol Province highlight many features that cannot be explained by Dr Walker's model.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

If you apply geological knowledge in a superficial or childish way then Dr Walker's model appears to fit the evidence. However when you look at the geological evidence in a more detailed way it is obvious that Dr Walker's model, based on the Flood story of the Bible, fails totally. Since the only real test of a scientific model is how well it can be applied to the real world, it can be conclusively stated that Dr Walker's model has no scientific value.

The source of information upon which Dr Walker based his model (the Bible's Book of Genesis) is useless when it comes to understanding the geology of the world.

REFERENCES

[1] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711. In issue No. 111 I asked the question "what physical evidence he (Dr Walker) would accept that would change his opinion about the Bible being scientifically accurate". In issue No. 112 his response was "I do not use science to decide whether the Bible is right. I assume it is". [Return to Text]

[2] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711, issue No. 110. [Return to Text]

[3] Smart, J., Grimes, K.G., Doutch, H.F., & Pinchin, 1980: "The Carpentaria and Karumba Basins, North Queensland." BMR Bulletin.202. [Return to Text]

[4] See diagrams of outcrops in; Archer, M, Hand, S.J., & Godthelp, H., 1991: Riversleigh. "The story of animals in ancient rainforests of inland Australia". [Return to Text]

[5] Summarised from; Day, R.W., Whitaker, W.G, Murray, C.G., Wilson, I.H., & Grimes, K.G., 1983: Queensland Geology. A companion volume to the 1:2 500 000 scale geological map (1975). Geological Survey of Queensland Publication 383. [Return to Text]

[6] Olgers, F., 1972: Geology of the Drummond Basin, Queensland. Department of Mineral and Energy, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology, and Geophysics Bulletin 132. [Return to Text]

[7] Withnall, I.W., Blake, P.R., Crouch, S.B.S., Tenison Woods, K., Grimes, K.G., Hayward, M.A., Lam, J.S., Garrad, P., & Rees, I.D., 1995: Geology of the southern part of the Anakie Inlier, central Queensland. Queensland Geology 7. [Return to Text]

[8] Some details on the Yarrol Province can be found in; "YARROL PROJECT TEAM*, 1997: New insights into the geology of the northern New England Orogen in the Rockhampton-Monto region, central coastal Queensland: Progress report on the Yarrol Project". Queensland Government Mining Journal, May 1997 edition. [Return to Text]

[9] Snelling, A.A. and J. Woodmorappe, 1998, "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Aug. 3-8, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Technical Symposium Sessions", R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15229, p. 527-545. [Return to Text]

[10] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711, issue No. 112. [Return to Text]

[11] Webb, G.E., 1998: "Earliest known Carboniferous shallow-water reefs, Gudman Formation (Tn1b), Queensland, Australia: Implications for Late Devonian reef collapse and recovery." Geology vol. 26 no.10, p.951-954. [Return to Text]

[12] Some more articles on "Noah's Flood". [Return to Text]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 05:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
...


You're not even addressing what I was even talking about. You're talking about what YOU want to talk about as if it is an effective counter to my argument. WHAT I SAID WAS "water did not jet out of the mid-atlantic ridge to produce the amounts of water necessary for the so-called great flood.

NOTHING about columns of ash.

This is the very definition of strawman. You cannot address the actual subject because to do so would disprove your argument so you have to create a strawman to attack instead because you can beat the strawman. But you cannot beat reality, you can only insanely argue against it.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



okay so, regarding ash in the Geo-column:

first is an explanation on the Geo-column itself, because I know you do not understand whatsoever what it is:
[link to pubs.usgs.gov]

Next, we have a complete breakdown of this theory, and why it makes zero scientific sense, with nearly one hundred respected references from real scientists, Notice how your
article is supported with facts from only a handful of pseudoscientists?
: [link to www.noanswersingenesis.org.au]

You've in fact, posted two different views, when in reality, there numerous different ideas about the great within creationism..Why? well, because creationism does not even agree with itself on the pseudoscience.

Now, you say "The evidence stands", yet here in full view we the actual science that breaks it down step by step, discounting every line of it's pseudo-scientific babble.
so clearly, 'The evidence' does not stand where you had s thought it did. I'm curious how well you will sleep tonight, knowing that the dogmatic propagandists of creationism drivel have been feeding you invented 'facts' that do not check out when held up to a magnifying glass.

What now?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


What now? I'm an atheist, not a creationist. You're still talking bloody nonexistent water being emitted from deep within the bowels of the earth by the power of god to create the mythical great flood. You're using this ridiculous claim of "magical water from nowhere pushing up with great force from beneath the mid-atlantic ridge" as a source of what caused the volcanic eruptions which led to the deposit of ash within the atmosphere.

There is no more water on earth today than there was 5 million years ago and no more than there was almost 14 million years ago. There has never been enough water IN EXISTENCE to cover the entire surface of the earth. Ever. The "great flood" never occurred.

This is the very definition of pseudoscience. Using one scientific fact which has been transformed through either intentional misinterpretation or plain ignorance into a strawman to attack another anti-religious concept.

You argument is a basic "post ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

Your logic =

"Volcanoes erupted a lot during the early years of earth

AND

My faith tells me that the entire surface of the planet was covered with water at one point as a result of the punishment of god.

AND

Ken Ham say dinosaurs existed at the same time as mankind

THEREFORE

The volcanic eruptions must have happened at a time DURING OR AFTER the great flood

THERFORE

The volcanic eruptions were caused by the force of the great flood."

It's bullshit, can't you see that?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12790821



The links I provided do not state these claims whatsoever, and lead me to believe that you didn't so much as even glance through the post (which was short) I do not enjoy being attacked by other atheists, while proving with facts why the creationism story does not make scientific sense.

but if you were just to lazy to check the links, as i'm not sure everyone was. Here is the text from another link, i'll just post the entire thing.


Dr Walker basically breaks up the geology of the world into 4 groups, all of which formed in the last 6000 years. A brief summary of his units is:

Creation Event - forms most of the earth, giving it a very large volume of rock, but is insignificant to geology since they are all buried by Group 3.
Lost World Era - between creation and flood. Negligible rocks produced and can be ignored.
Flood Event - deposits a large amount of rock covering all the creation rock. All deposition occurs in the first 60 days of the flood (possibly up to 150 days long).
New World Era - negligible rock produced. Should be recognisable since fossils present should be similar to modern animals.
The biggest problem with Dr Walker's model is that he has started with the Bible story, made a model out of his interpretation of it, and then tries to force the data from the real world fit his model. This is the exact opposite of how science works. The first step is to collect data and then create your model to fit the data. Also, a scientist must be prepared to change a model if new evidence is found that does not fit the old model. Dr Walker has further removed his model from the realms of science by admitting that he will never accept any evidence that contradicts his Bible-based model [1]. He appears more interested in imposing a pre-ordained framework on geology than he is in understanding it.

As damning as Dr Walker's lack of objectivity with regard to the evidence is I will move on since the real test of any model is how well it works.

Even a brief look at his criteria shows that almost every rock found in the world will be considered a "Flood" rock. When compared to the complexity seen in the world through modern geology, Dr Walker's model appears childish. Some people prefer simplicity, but the fact remains that despite the complexity of modern geology, those who study it as their profession can understand it. As a tool, modern geology is highly successful at finding the oil, coal, and metal ores that are necessary for our modern society, thus proving its worth as a science. Since Dr Walker's model portrays all rocks as being due to one event, how would he be able to differentiate the rocks and know where to look for ore-bodies such as porphyry copper or volcanogenic massive sulphide deposits? These sorts of orebodies do not just occur anywhere. They are strongly constrained by their geological province, which is linked to the plate tectonic models of the Earth. Dr Walker's model does not allow for plate tectonics and province recognition, and would therefore be useless in mineral exploration or any form of scientific investigation.

THE INCONSISTENCIES IN DR WALKER’S MODEL

One major problem with Dr Walker's model is that he does not use it consistently. Dr Walker has stated that the fossils at Riversleigh were not the result of the flood and they would be from the New World Era. [2] The reason he states this is because, according to his model, it is impossible for the fossils produced during the flood to be related to the animals that now inhabit the continents, since the pre-flood continents and their faunas would have no resemblance to the modern continents. Since both the fossil fauna in the rocks at Riversleigh and the modern Australian fauna are dominated by marsupials, Dr Walker concludes that the rocks at Riversleigh must be New World Era. However, classifying the rocks at Riversleigh as New World Era ignores the geological evidence such as:

The Riversleigh locality contains abundant fossils.
The rocks that contain the fossils are an erosional remnant of the Wyaaba Cycle of the Karumba Basin. [3]
The Karumba Basin is very large, almost as big as the Great Artesian Basin (GAB).
The limestones containing the Riversleigh fossils occur at the top of flat mesa-like hills. [4]
All four of these criteria would fit Dr Walker's model as flood deposits eroded by the floodwaters as they receded off the continents. However, this evidence is ignored. Therefore Dr Walker needs to outline when the geological information is important for deciding where rocks fit into his model, and when the geology is to be ignored in favour of the fossil evidence.

THE GREAT ARTESIAN BASIN (GAB)

Dr Walker attempts to show that his model works for the GAB, however, in an attempt to make it fit his model he only presented some very simple evidence and ignored all the evidence that contradicted his interpretation.

PROBLEM 1 - ENVIRONMENT OF DEPOSITION

Dr Walker wants all rocks to be deposited in a single event (Noah's Flood). However, studying rocks in detail shows that they are deposited in a variety of environments. I will illustrate by using the Eromanga Basin, which is part of the GAB. It displays a pattern of rock deposition that is the same as in the whole GAB, but by focussing on only one part of the GAB I can reduce the number of geological formation names that are used within the GAB. A summary of the geology of the GAB [5] is given below, with the oldest formations at the bottom, and the youngest at the top.

Formation Name

Thickness (m)

Environment of Deposition

Winton Formation
500

Fresh water rivers

Mackunda Formation
100

Marine

Wilgunya Subgroup
770

"

Longsight Sandstone
~70

"

Gilbert River Formation
50

"

Cadna-owie Formation
60

"

Hooray Sandstone
150

"

Ronlow beds
~90

Fresh water rivers

Blantyre Sandstone
~50

"

Injune Creek Group
470

"

Evergreen Formation
75

"

Precipice Sandstone
120

"

As you can see from the table above, the Eromanga Basin changes its environment of deposition several times. It starts terrestrial at the base, changes to marine in the middle, and finishes as terrestrial again. The basin is not one simple event as Dr Walker would like to portray.

Also, in this example Dr Walker fails to mention that the GAB is only a thin layer of sedimentary rock overlying other basins that would also have been deposited during Noah's Flood according to his model. Dr Walker just refers to them as "Basement Rock" and does not try to explain them. Even though the GAB is several kilometres thick in places, it is a relatively minor feature compared to some of the basins that were deposited before it. For example, in the central Queensland area the GAB overlies the Galilee Basin, which in turn overlies the Drummond Basin. The Galilee Basin is about 200m thick and mainly deposited by fresh water rivers, [5] and the Drummond Basin is over 12 km thick [6] and was dominated by terrestrial deposition but had several marine incursions. Finally the Drummond Basin overlies the Anakie Inlier. [7] The less deformed parts of the Anakie Inlier were obviously deposited in a marine environment since they contain abundant marine fossils. The exact thickness is not known, but it would be kilometres thick.

Even the above simplification of the geology of central Queensland is much more complex than you would expect from Dr Walker's model, particularly since there is evidence for many changes of the environment of deposition. It could not have been produced by one simple flood event.

PROBLEM 2 - INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN LINES OF EVIDENCE

Dr Walker, in several places, describes the first stage of the flood as "intense" and "severe" with regard to geological processes such as erosion and deposition, and claims life would have been "catastrophically destroyed". The intense geological processes are presumably invoked to explain the deposition of all the geological units, but how does Dr Walker explain the dinosaur footprints near the top of the sequence? Does Dr Walker think that the dinosaurs swam on the surface in an environment that was catastrophically destroying all life, while below them severe currents were depositing 15km of sediments? Then towards the end did the dinosaurs swim down to the bottom of the worldwide ocean and have a stampede on the sea floor? It is obvious that footprints in the Winton Formation in Larks Quarry near Winton totally destroy his model.

CONCLUSION

Even in a simple area like the GAB Dr Walker's model does not explain the geology seen. When an area with more complex geology is examined the failure of Dr Walker's model is even worse. Any geologist who has done fieldwork would be able to think of geological examples that could only be explained by old Earth theories. I will use my latest project in the Yarrol Province of central Queensland to demonstrate how Dr Walker's model fails to explain areas of complex geology.

DR WALKER'S MODEL AND THE YARROL PROVINCE

The diagram and table below give a very simplified version of the geology of the Yarrol Province. [8]



[U= Unconformities]

Unit No.

Unit Name

Depositional Environment

Thickness

1

Capella Creek Group and Erebus beds Shallow Marine
~2000m

2

Mount Morgan Trondhjemite Granitic Intrusion
N/A

3

Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formations Dominantly terrestrial with some shallow marine
~2400m

4

Mount Alma Formation Deep Marine
~4000m

5

Rockhampton Group Shallow Marine
2000m

6

Youlambie Conglomerate Terrestrial
~1500m

7

Bouldercombe Complex Granitic Intrusion
N/A

8

Precipice Sandstone Terrestrial
~50m

9

Stanwell Coal Measures Initially marine but becomes terrestrial.
Not known

A comparison with Dr Walker's model shows that there are several things to note about the geology of the Yarrol Province.

It's large. The approximate volume is 350,000km3 of rock, easily fitting Dr Walker's "Continental" scale
of geological features.
It contains abundant pyroclastic volcanics.
It contains abundant fossils.
Given the large size of the Yarrol Province it could be classified as either part of the "Creation" event or the "Flood" event. However, according to Dr Walker, abundant pyroclastic volcanics and fossils are inconsistent with his interpretation of the "Creation" event. Therefore, using these three criteria it is obvious from Dr Walker's model that the Yarrol Province was deposited during the flood, and all ~10km of sedimentary rock were deposited in the first 60 days of the flood.

However, when you look in detail at the geology of the Yarrol Province you see that it is impossible for it to fit into such a small time frame.

PROBLEM 1 - GRANITES

As you can see in the diagram above, the sequence of rocks are intruded by two granites, the Mount Morgan Trondhjemite (Unit 2) and the Bouldercombe Complex (Unit 7). There are many more, but these are all that is needed for my demonstration of the failings of Dr Walker's model.

From geological evidence it is obvious that these granites were two separate events. The Mount Morgan Trondhjemite intrudes the Capella Creek Group (part of Unit 1), the granite is then cooled and unroofed (exposed to the surface by erosion).

The Mount Morgan Trondhjemite and Capella Creek Group are then overlain by the Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formations (Unit 3), Mount Alma Formations (Unit 4), Rockhampton Group (Unit 5), and Youlambie Conglomerate (Unit 6). Clasts of the Mount Morgan Trondhjemite are commonly found in the basal beds of the Mount Hoopbound and Balaclava Formation.

After deposition of the Youlambie Conglomerate the Yarrol Province is intruded by the second granite, the Bouldercombe Complex (Unit 7). This granite also intrudes the Capella Creek Group and the Mount Alma Formation, but this would have been too difficult to show on the diagram. Once again the granite is cooled and unroofed and then overlain by the Precipice Sandstone (Unit 8) and Stanwell Coal Measures (Unit 9).

The important point of this is that there are two entirely separate granitic intrusion events in the Yarrol Province. One granite is intruded, cools, crystallises and is unroofed. It is then overlain by several kilometres of sedimentary rocks that are then intruded by another granite that also cools, crystallises and is unroofed. This second granite is then also covered by sedimentary rocks.

The problem here is that granites take a long time to cool down. Even a recent creationist paper [9] noted that it would take as short a period of time as 3500 years to cool down a granite. If they could have found a quicker time I am sure that they would have used it. Also, the granites mentioned above are much bigger than the example used in the creationist paper, however, I will use 3500 years as the minimum time needed to cool the granites. There are two entirely separate intrusions in the Yarrol Province and both would have required 3500 years to cool, and both intrude into and are overlain by rocks that Dr Walker would classify as flood deposits. Therefore, Dr Walker wants to force 7000 years of granite cooling into a period of 60 days. More time would be needed to emplace the granites and unroof them, but clearly, even the time needed to cool the granites greatly exceeds Dr Walker's time frames.

Dr Walker tries to claim that the granites could have been cooled quickly by water, [10] but this does not solve the problem. Granites are always coarsely crystalline rocks. If molten rock is cooled quickly the result is a fine-grained lava-like rock or even a volcanic glass. There is no way to cool molten rock quickly enough and still have it produce intrusions with a granitic texture.

PROBLEM 2 - ALLOCHTHONOUS BLOCKS AND MICROFOSSILS

["Allochthonous" is just a big word for "no longer in place."]

The Mount Alma Formation (Unit 4) was deposited in a deep marine environment, in water depths between 750m and 1000m. Fine-grained sandstone, siltstone and mudstone dominate the unit. The siltstones contain microscopic fossils called radiolarians that can only settle out of water in very quiet conditions. The microscopic fossils are very fragile and some possess very delicate spines that project from the fossil. There are also some coarse-grained units in the formation caused by submarine avalanches (mass flows). Near the base of the Mount Alma Formation are large allochthonous blocks of rock from the underlying Erebus beds (part of Unit 1). It is thought that the geological event that caused the unconformity at the base of the Mount Alma Formation lifted up parts of the Erebus beds and caused large blocks to break off the raised areas and slide into the deep marine environments. Most of the blocks are relatively small and are about 100m long, however, some are over 2km long.

Dr Walker interprets the unconformity that unroofed the Mount Morgan Tonalite to be caused by the very strong water currants of the flood [10] and would therefore probably assume that the large blocks of rock were moved by the water currents.

It is impossible to have a water current strong enough to move blocks of rock over 2km long, yet gentle enough to allow microscopic fossils to settle out of water. Also, despite their delicate nature, the microscopic fossils are not broken, indicating that they could not have been deposited by "intense" and "severe" flood conditions.

PROBLEM 3 - REEFS

The Rockhampton Group (Unit 5) was deposited in a shallow, warm, marine environment, and patch reefs have been identified within the unit. [11] The patch reefs range from small mounds 4-10m in diameter and 1m thick, to large complexes more than 50m diameter and 7m thick. It is known that the reefs are preserved in the place in which they formed since their bases are gradational with the underlying sedimentary rocks. The reefs contain an abundant and varied fauna and would have had a complex ecosystem broadly similar to modern reefs.

These reefs with their complex ecosystems would have taken years or decades to form. Not the days required by Dr Walker's model.

PROBLEM 4 - FOOTPRINTS

Dinosaur footprints are relatively common in the Precipice Sandstone (Unit 8). Once again Dr Walker has the problem that dinosaurs would have had to swim in ocean currants strong enough to deposit 10km of sedimentary rock and move blocks of rock over 2km long, and then towards the end when deposition is almost over they would have had to swim down to, and walk around on, the sea floor.

CONCLUSION

Areas of complex geology such as the Yarrol Province highlight many features that cannot be explained by Dr Walker's model.

OVERALL CONCLUSION

If you apply geological knowledge in a superficial or childish way then Dr Walker's model appears to fit the evidence. However when you look at the geological evidence in a more detailed way it is obvious that Dr Walker's model, based on the Flood story of the Bible, fails totally. Since the only real test of a scientific model is how well it can be applied to the real world, it can be conclusively stated that Dr Walker's model has no scientific value.

The source of information upon which Dr Walker based his model (the Bible's Book of Genesis) is useless when it comes to understanding the geology of the world.

REFERENCES

[1] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711. In issue No. 111 I asked the question "what physical evidence he (Dr Walker) would accept that would change his opinion about the Bible being scientifically accurate". In issue No. 112 his response was "I do not use science to decide whether the Bible is right. I assume it is". [Return to Text]

[2] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711, issue No. 110. [Return to Text]

[3] Smart, J., Grimes, K.G., Doutch, H.F., & Pinchin, 1980: "The Carpentaria and Karumba Basins, North Queensland." BMR Bulletin.202. [Return to Text]

[4] See diagrams of outcrops in; Archer, M, Hand, S.J., & Godthelp, H., 1991: Riversleigh. "The story of animals in ancient rainforests of inland Australia". [Return to Text]

[5] Summarised from; Day, R.W., Whitaker, W.G, Murray, C.G., Wilson, I.H., & Grimes, K.G., 1983: Queensland Geology. A companion volume to the 1:2 500 000 scale geological map (1975). Geological Survey of Queensland Publication 383. [Return to Text]

[6] Olgers, F., 1972: Geology of the Drummond Basin, Queensland. Department of Mineral and Energy, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology, and Geophysics Bulletin 132. [Return to Text]

[7] Withnall, I.W., Blake, P.R., Crouch, S.B.S., Tenison Woods, K., Grimes, K.G., Hayward, M.A., Lam, J.S., Garrad, P., & Rees, I.D., 1995: Geology of the southern part of the Anakie Inlier, central Queensland. Queensland Geology 7. [Return to Text]

[8] Some details on the Yarrol Province can be found in; "YARROL PROJECT TEAM*, 1997: New insights into the geology of the northern New England Orogen in the Rockhampton-Monto region, central coastal Queensland: Progress report on the Yarrol Project". Queensland Government Mining Journal, May 1997 edition. [Return to Text]

[9] Snelling, A.A. and J. Woodmorappe, 1998, "The Cooling of Thick Igneous Bodies on a Young Earth, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Aug. 3-8, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Technical Symposium Sessions", R. E. Walsh (ed.), Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15229, p. 527-545. [Return to Text]

[10] In the "Letters to the Editor" section of The Australian Geologist Newsletter ISSN 0312-4711, issue No. 112. [Return to Text]

[11] Webb, G.E., 1998: "Earliest known Carboniferous shallow-water reefs, Gudman Formation (Tn1b), Queensland, Australia: Implications for Late Devonian reef collapse and recovery." Geology vol. 26 no.10, p.951-954. [Return to Text]

[12] Some more articles on "Noah's Flood". [Return to Text]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27499577


Oops. You're right. My turn to apologize, as this same thing happened to me earlier. I, like other atheist, can sometimes be oversensitive after years of religious abuse. I did go to the first link, but I got turned off at an MD trying to give lessons on geology. I'd rather hear it from a geologist. Just like I'd rather hear about astrophysics from Neil DeGrasse Tyson rather than Richard Dawkins.

Again, all apologies for doing the same that annoys me when others do it..Atheism doesn't always = smart. I am a good example of the factuality of that sentiment.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 05:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
No worries.

Why is Tyson so famout though, he's made zero contributions to science.
Or astrophysics rather. Is it because he's not afraid of cameras? I imagine most physicists are camera shy.

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27499577
United States
12/02/2012 05:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
It appears dead here now.
I guess i'll give it some time.
perhaps all of the creationists have gone back to their homebase at answersingensis.com to ask their cult leaders for even newer updated theories that attempt to exploit holes in things science hasn't quite figured out, or that's what they like to tout. I'm sure the next round of links will be the other three versions of the great flood theory that they have yet to post. it's okay I have links debunking those as well.
Perhaps they simply changed their minds, and will accept the truth.. doubtful though..

alright, well.. check back later..
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12790821
United States
12/02/2012 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
No worries.

Why is Tyson so famout though, he's made zero contributions to science.
Or astrophysics rather. Is it because he's not afraid of cameras? I imagine most physicists are camera shy.

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


Well, most of the astrophysicists who made the most noted discoveries are either dead, or not interested in youtube or open agnosticism. What he has been able to do is bring the actual science of astrophysics to the internet and through that, the world, and enabled countless freethinkers around the world to effectively be able to repute such crazy woo as "Nibiru."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 06:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
That is a very good thing I agree.
Nobody is going to replace Carl Sagan to me though.
Man, I miss that dude.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11705783
United States
12/02/2012 07:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Must I remind you folks that there is no room for illumimati conspiracy theories, which can also be easily debunked within a two minute google search. [...] There is less than zero evidence that an illumimati' have infiltrated the American government whatsoever.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 3059140


[link to memory.loc.gov]
"It was not my intention to doubt that, the doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied [convinced] of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the lodges of Freemasons in this country had, as societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the people from their government in view, is too evident to be questioned."


-U.S. President George Washington writing to Lutheran minister G.W. Snyder, October 24, 1798





The Jacobite Jesuit: Fr. Alexander Cameron, S.J.
[link to goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com]





The Jesuits, Clermont College, The Stuarts & Advanced-Degree Freemasonry
[link to troyspace2.wordpress.com]





The Jesuits have always ran education for counter-reformation. They use their pagan foundational beliefs to counter Bible truth and brainwash their victims.
 Quoting: - 28711488



"Creationism Is Paganism", Says Jesuit Astronomer
[link to goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com]





The Father Of The Big Bang Theory Is A Jesuit Priest
[link to www.atheistnexus.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 07:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
You're on the wrong thread. We are looking at data and science here, not quotes from presidents taken out of context, and YouTube videos.
This thread is not about the illumimati. Now I'm sorry you took the time to gather all of those links, and quotes to convince me that I'm brainwashed, but I don't believe in anything which negates of whole idea of brainwashing. Jackass.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 11705783
United States
12/02/2012 07:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Evotards are the tards of the NWO.
 Quoting: -GLP-Christian-

"...a book fell into my hands entituled Proofs of a Conspiracy by John Robison, which gives a full account of a society of Freemasons, that distinguishes itself by the name of Illuminati, whose plan is to overturn all government and all religion, even natural; and who endeavour to eradicate every idea of a supreme being, and distinguish man from beast by his shape only."

-Lutheran minister G.W. Snyder writing to U.S. President George Washington, August 22, 1798 [link to rotunda.upress.virginia.edu]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 11705783



Free book: Darwin and the NWO

[link to www.creationism.org]
 Quoting: Klink

bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19278758
United States
12/02/2012 07:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Pat Robertson is working for the wrong side. Jesusissavior.com is made by a satanist but there are pictures of him flashing the Manu cornuto on it.


Search pat Robertson Manu cornuto on google.


Earth is 6000 years old, period. It wouldn't be 2012 if it were millions of years old. aD stands for ANNOS DOMiNAE year of our LORD. They use bce and ce in science because they hate god and hate Christ. Bce equals before common era and common era.

any claim of millions or billions in terms of time is bs made-up by liars. They know it's 6000 and they live like it, but they want to confuse and create doubt because they are sick bastards.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 07:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
And perhaps since your such a great researcher, you should be aware of the religious agenda. Bs right?

repeated attempts to lead public school children in prayer, it's worth looking at the political goals of both atheists and theists. Here's a short list of very clear items on the Christian Agenda:

End funding for Planned Parenthood, which would deprive millions of women access to general health services. Pass the first openly discriminatory amendment to the U.S. constitution, effectively legislating homosexuals as second-class citizens. Teach religion as science. (As we saw in Cobb County in 2006.) Continue to foster and expand the government's funding of "Faith Based Initiatives," despite the fact that such funding forces people of all religions and non-religion to contribute to sectarian organizations. Deprive inmates of any reading material except the Bible Boycott the Girl Scouts for their support of Planned Parenthood. Continue to teach Abstinence Only sex education despite its abysmal record. Redefine rape to more accurately reflect "Biblical Values." (It's Georgia again!) Subvert the separation of church and state in government meetings and schools by exploiting loopholes.

There's two sides to every coin. But this is not the thread. And if you still cannot refute my earlier posts then why keep posting?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1395091
Australia
12/02/2012 07:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
No offense to religious people, but are you really THAT scared of dying that you need to believe in something as trivial as an afterlife in heaven? Are you THAT entwined on who you are that you can't picture death? Are you scared of hell? I'm not a hypocrite - I've done terrible things & if these ideas exist, I'm definitely going to hell. But I'm not going to suck up to some cunt for the rest of my life because I'm scared of what comes after death.



/offensemode:[on]

It just makes me think that the religitards are a bunch of cowards. Ironically enough, their attitude towards everyone else will probably be their downfall, lol.

"foolish I am to not fear the wrath of god" sorry, but fuck god. What saddistic cruel mother fucker creates people in a universe just to see if they can abide by his rules for an entire life time, for absolutely no reason what so ever? We're his personally pornography, if he actually exists.

"I'll give them temptation towards things that are wrong, & then I will torture them for eternity for even thinking about doing things." Like a fucking child burning plastic soldiers with a magnifying glass.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 07:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Pat Robertson is working for the wrong side. Jesusissavior.com is made by a satanist but there are pictures of him flashing the Manu cornuto on it.


Search pat Robertson Manu cornuto on google.


Earth is 6000 years old, period. It wouldn't be 2012 if it were millions of years old. aD stands for ANNOS DOMiNAE year of our LORD. They use bce and ce in science because they hate god and hate Christ. Bce equals before common era and common era.

any claim of millions or billions in terms of time is bs made-up by liars. They know it's 6000 and they live like it, but they want to confuse and create doubt because they are sick bastards.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19278758



Have you even read the other replies that break down creationism one by one. You sound very unintelligible, so I'll leave it there. You don't even understand why the date is 2012. Maybe they only let you read from the bible. Go back to second grade man. Wow.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 3059140
United States
12/02/2012 07:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
No offense to religious people, but are you really THAT scared of dying that you need to believe in something as trivial as an afterlife in heaven? Are you THAT entwined on who you are that you can't picture death? Are you scared of hell? I'm not a hypocrite - I've done terrible things & if these ideas exist, I'm definitely going to hell. But I'm not going to suck up to some cunt for the rest of my life because I'm scared of what comes after death.



/offensemode:[on]

It just makes me think that the religitards are a bunch of cowards. Ironically enough, their attitude towards everyone else will probably be their downfall, lol.

"foolish I am to not fear the wrath of god" sorry, but fuck god. What saddistic cruel mother fucker creates people in a universe just to see if they can abide by his rules for an entire life time, for absolutely no reason what so ever? We're his personally pornography, if he actually exists.

"I'll give them temptation towards things that are wrong, & then I will torture them for eternity for even thinking about doing things." Like a fucking child burning plastic soldiers with a magnifying glass.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1395091



You aren't foolish man, there's no judgment for who you are. There may be an afterlife but i sincerely doubt it is a constant like one place or another. That is a control mechanism. Be yourself, enjoy this life.
-
User ID: 1547099
United States
12/02/2012 08:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
The earth and universe are 6000 years old!!

Evidence here on earth shows there was no 'big bang' and the earth did not form as that theory or model claims.

The baserock granites are claimed to be igneous from when the earth cooled down over bazzillions of years - needed for the evolution beliefs. However well known is that granite cannot be heated to a molten state and remain granite - proof it was never molten. For this reason they cannot produce granite in a lab, even though they can produce all-types of other mineral, even something close to diamond. This science fact confirms the biblical account that God created granite 6000 years ago on the first day.

THE EARTH WAS NEVER MOLTEN COOLING DOWN

Granite was never molten and is not an igneous rock. It cannot be produced in a lab. Also interesting that granite has radio halos with a fleeting half-life proving granite formed almost instantaneous; published in science journals long ago and never disproven. (Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)

[link to www.halos.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]



Other observations around the galaxy confirm a young universe.



According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

According to their [Astronomers] model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.

[link to creation.com]

[link to www.mrao.cam.ac.uk]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25873927
United States
12/02/2012 08:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
well if nasa is capable of lying, i'd say there might be a problem with the accepted scientific age.
plus i think there may have been some sort of rapid accelerated growth that originally occurred to produce life. you know they can clone a human in 6 days, and it rests on the 7th. hmm
yes, that's from a biologist i know who does human cloning.

anyway, are you so sure Earth is even a planet?


Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17472287
New Zealand
12/02/2012 09:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Heres your proof:

[link to creation.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1465884
United States
12/02/2012 10:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
Good grief! Whether it is 6000 years old or millions or billions of years old doesn't matter. The word used in the creation account, "day", can mean era, so don't go all "see...they believe in the 6000 year old earth theory and that makes them stupid so there must be other things wrong with the Christian faith".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20557126
Sweden
12/02/2012 10:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The earth is NOT 6000 years old.
This thread is a proof that mankind is a dying race. I mean 10 year olds know that the earth is not 6000 years old. You scream for proof but you deny science, do you think there is a BOOK that was written the day the earth was made? Yes i bet you do because you base your life upon an old ass book written by man to enslave man. I hope you never breed, because stupid is a virus that seems to enjoy the environment in christian the population.

As i said you scream for proof, give ME the proof that the earth is 6000 years old, other than some bullshit story written by a drunk.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!