It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





Paleontology also reveals fossil facts that are consistent with corresponding effects of a unique FLOOD.


Scientific source?



There is no intimation of gradation, either in Genesis or the fossil record.


Scientific source?



The mathematics and unique qualities of the Universe display God's wisdom and glory.


Oh, the old "intelligent" design argument...if the goal was to make it for us, it's a pretty piss poor atempt.



The source I linked pulls the shows the exact bible quotes claiming the earth is flat, the center of the universe, and that the stars are "stuck" to the sky.

You make a lot of claims that aren't backed up in science, which might explain why you don't post any scientific sources when making scientific claims.




posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


And you really like ignoring questions. And no, people weren't implicitly doing scientific research. Science is about rigorous controlled testing.

Speaking of science, where's the genetic, geologic, and fossil evidence of the flood? Why don't we get bunnies in the pre-Cambrian? Why doesn't the world have a consistent geologic 'flood layer'? Why isn't there the expected evidence in every animal genome on Earth of the massive bottleneck in gene pools that occurred only a few thousand years ago?
edit on 28/3/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Stupid touchpad keeps getting in the way of my typing and clicking on the 'post' button when I don't want to!



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 




Paleontology also reveals fossil facts that are consistent with corresponding effects of a unique FLOOD.


Scientific source?


uh...THE FOSSIL RECORD...



There is no intimation of gradation, either in Genesis or the fossil record.



Scientific source?

again, THE FOSSIL RECORD



The mathematics and unique qualities of the Universe display God's wisdom and glory.



Oh, the old "intelligent" design argument...if the goal was to make it for us, it's a pretty piss poor atempt.

The source I linked pulls the shows the exact bible quotes claiming the earth is flat, the center of the universe, and that the stars are "stuck" to the sky.

You make a lot of claims that aren't backed up in science, which might explain why you don't post any scientific sources when making scientific claims.


You blatantly ignored my statements. Go figure.

A2D



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


The fossil record does NOT back up what you claim it to back up. Tell me, how exactly does the fossil record back up a global flood for example? It doesn't, on the contrary, it proves that there wasn't a global flood


As for the rest:

How do mathematics prove the existence of god? We know why planets orbit around the sun, no magic involved for example.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


The fossil record very distinctly points to a global catastrophe, more to the point, a global flood.

The mere fact that most fossils are embedded in deposits created by WATER is an easy indicator. In fact, geologists would point out that waterborne sediments are so widely distributed that they far outweigh any other agents of burial.

Also, the method in which the fossils are buried speaks volumes.
I think we can all agree that fossilization requires very specific, complex conditions. The sheer volume of the fossil record, in light of the conditions required for fossilization, does NOT support uniformitarianism. Also, some fossils are found in large volumes, such as dinosaurs. A large majority of them are WASHED into position, showing a distinct stream orientation, much like petrified trees. Sure, you may explain this with a localized flood, but when said fossil-bed continues for thousands of square kilometres, a localized flood is highly suspect.

A2D



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Do you have a source for ANY of this? More specifically, the contention that the typical fossilization process is due to global flooding?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





The fossil record very distinctly points to a global catastrophe, more to the point, a global flood.


Yes, around where the dinosaurs went extinct...450 million years ago! But given that we find fossils that clearly weren't submerged in water when they died, and the fact that there's ZERO sedimental evidence hinting at a global flood....you're claim is hogwash.



The mere fact that most fossils are embedded in deposits created by WATER is an easy indicator. In fact, geologists would point out that waterborne sediments are so widely distributed that they far outweigh any other agents of burial.


Simply not true. And even if it were, you do realize that fossils can be submerged by water AFTER being fossilized, right?



Also, some fossils are found in large volumes, such as dinosaurs.


Actually, due to the complex conditions required for fossilization, only a tiny minority of the entire dinosaur population has been fossilized.



A large majority of them are WASHED into position, showing a distinct stream orientation, much like petrified trees.


Actually, most look like they lied down and died. Your "washed into position" claim isn't backed up by scientific finds at all.



Sure, you may explain this with a localized flood, but when said fossil-bed continues for thousands of square kilometres, a localized flood is highly suspect.


You do realize there's continental drift, right? Seas came and disappeared while life was evolving and the continental plates shifted. So of course oceans spanning a ton of kilometers came and went...and left remains. And some land got submerged again...

NOTHING you posted supports a global flood, and a lot of it is in fact blatantly wrong from a scientific standpoint.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Like I said, my source is the fossil record...

Take a look at it...ask a geologist...use your brain

A2D



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Like I said, my source is the fossil record...

Take a look at it...ask a geologist...use your brain

A2D

Could you quote a single geologist that supports your view that a) fossils were formed during some biblical flood and b) that the biblical flood and other assertions you made from the bible are supported by our current understanding of geology? It is my understanding that the field of geology does not in any way support your view, so the onus of proof is on you. If what you say is correct, there will be a wealth of academic papers and textbooks to choose from to back up your claim.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Like I said, my source is the fossil record...

Take a look at it...ask a geologist...use your brain

A2D


The fossil record does NOT back up anything you claim!! On the contrary, it proves a global flood didn't happen


You don't even have to use your brain to figure that one out, just google for it for crying out loud...as long as you can read, you should know that. Unless you're being ignorant on purpose and closing your eyes from reality.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Here, I'll go the extra mile and give you two geologists

Gregg Davidson, Ph.D
Ken Wolgemuth, Ph.D



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So tell me then, how does the fossil record support uniformitarianism?

A2D



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Here, I'll go the extra mile and give you two geologists

Gregg Davidson, Ph.D
Ken Wolgemuth, Ph.D


And can you post their relevant academic papers? All I can tell from googling is that they are devout Christians who are also geologists. What papers have they published that support the idea that fossils were formed by a biblical flood?

Furthermore, do you have any more? 2 devout Christians wrestling their faith with their academic training is hardly overwhelming proof, considering they are in the tiny minority IF they claim that geological records support anything that you said.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


It's pretty easy to tell how the fossil record supports creation instead of [the other choice].

With regards to the fossil record, we DO NOT see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity as you progress to more recent layers, as would be the case with [the other choice].



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


You asked for one, I gave you two, now you want more. Go figure.

www.wheaton.edu...

There, there's a whole mess of geologists for you.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So tell me then, how does the fossil record support uniformitarianism?

A2D


The only time we know didn't feature uniformitarianism was at the very beginning when the big bang happened. We have no indication that the natural laws were any different back when earth was created compared to today. What's your basis for claiming this isn't the case?

Geological actualism is the very basis for paleontology...
edit on 28-3-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Yet again, all you have done is posted a list of Christian geologists. I want to see their published academic work that supports your claim. A scientist is not talking as a scientist unless he's publishing work. A Christian scientist writing books about theology to a Christien audience is no more talking as a scientist than a scientist talking about the game last night. I want you to post their peer-reviewed academic work that supports your claims, not a list of Christian scientists.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 





With regards to the fossil record, we DO NOT see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity as you progress to more recent layers, as would be the case with [the other choice].


Actually, that's exactly what we see...at least when you're talking about layers as different geological ages. Plates shift constantly, mountains rise, and what once was ocean floor, can now be a mountain top.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Yet again, all you have done is posted a list of Christian geologists. I want to see their published academic work that supports your claim. A scientist is not talking as a scientist unless he's publishing work. A Christian scientist writing books about theology to a Christien audience is no more talking as a scientist than a scientist talking about the game last night. I want you to post their peer-reviewed academic work that supports your claims, not a list of Christian scientists.


You won't find any scientific studies on that site, the only article on there is called:



Wayne Belcher's The Parable of the Mountain provides spiritual insight into his climb up Mt. St. Helens


But you can contact them and ask questions. I will do that in the next 2 days and post the answer in here for everyone's enjoyment



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You're referring to the geologic record...I clearly said "organisms" which distinctly implies the biologic record...

A2D

edit to add: I also forgot to mention genetics in my list of sciences...care to dispute that one too while we're at it? We've done everything else and managed to get nowhere...why not add one more pointless discussion to the list right?
edit on 28-3-2011 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)







 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join