The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Scofflaw said:

But dissent amongst revelantly qualified scientists remained, and remains. It is their scientific argument that is being suppressed, not discredited.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/

http://www.afaf.org.uk/

Well, there are also still some geologists who refuse to accept plate tectonics. However, none of them have come up with an argument that really demolishes the plate tectonics paradigm, by either proving it unworkable or offering a clearly better explanation, so they're in much the same boat as Creationists.

Seriously, wolfsbane, I've yet to see a single argument for the Creationist paradigm that doesn't require very selective use of evidence, extremely tortuous logic. I know the geology of Ireland very well, and it really isn't anything like the deposits of a vast flood. You are certainly welcome to claim conspiracy, but that's hardly going to persuade me, since I'd have to be part of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

The evidence would suggest that God doesn't exist.......

The creation of the Universe and God himself are not repeatably observable. However, strong CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE does exist for both God and Creation – and strong circumstantial evidence IS acceptable in a Court of Law where it has a STATUS OF PROOF approaching scientific and eyewitness evidence.

In any event, here are some of the basic Circumstantial Proofs for the existence of God :-

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.
2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.
3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.
4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.
5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.
6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God


Each science discipline provides incontrovertible evidence for Creation as follows:-

1. Geology shows that all fossils are less than c. 7,000 years old with the vast majority of fossils dating from Noah’s Flood 5,000 +/- 500 years ago. The assumption that the millions of so-called “annual micro layers” observed in deep sedimentary rock layers such as the Grand Canyon represented millions of years of sedimentary deposition was disproved during the Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in 1980 when hundreds of thousands of “micro layers” were observed to be laid down in newly formed sedimentary rocks in a matter of hours.
Equally, polystrate tree fossils are observed ‘standing up through’ sedimentary rock layers that supposedly took millions of years to lay down – the logical conclusion is that that these layers were laid down rapidly and not over millions of years. It is ridiculous to postulate that a dead tree stood upright for millions of years while slow deposition of sediment gradually buried it. The fact that the ‘bottom’ of the fossilised tree is observed to be as well preserved as the ‘top’ is also a ‘bit of a giveaway’ that very rapid burial took place. Deep sedimentary rock layers therefore do not indicate ‘long ages’ – only a catastrophic worldwide disaster!!!!

Radioactive dating of rocks doesn’t work in PRINCIPLE – because we cannot know what the starting levels of radioactivity were or if further radioactivity was added or taken away (for example, by the differential leaching of the radioactive chemicals such as Potassium) during the ‘life’ of the rock. It also doesn’t work in PRACTICE – because erroneous (very large) ages are routinely obtained from rocks of recent KNOWN ages.


2. Palaeontology shows the sequence in which creatures were killed and buried during Noah’s Flood – seafloor dwelling creatures and flocculated plankton first – all the way up to large land animals and birds, that obviously would be last to ‘succumb to the waves’. The extraction of red blood cells and haemoglobin from (unfossilized) dinosaur bone and the extraction of DNA fragments from insects trapped in supposedly multiple million year old amber indicates that these creatures were alive very recently indeed. If these bones / insects were, in fact, millions of years old, all biological material in them would have completely degenerated by now. The observed rates of biological degeneration under such conditions would give maximal ages of a few thousand years for these bones / insects.
The list of species in the so-called Geological Column represents the order of their catastrophic burial and it is NOT a record of their supposed evolution.

Equally, using collections of animal and plant fossils to ‘date’ a rock on the basis of Evolutionary assumptions in relation to the assumed position of these creatures in the ‘Evolutionary Tree’ is only valid if Evolution (and its Tree) are scientifically valid. It is actually an example of circular reasoning in action.
Strata, which hold the same collection of fossils, could indicate that these creatures were buried during the same stage of the Flood Event for a number of reasons including their physical location in the Biosphere or the place where they gathered together before being drowned. It could also be related to their size, shape or hydrodynamic characteristics.

3. Taxonomy shows the CURRENT biological relationships among species that have arisen through speciation processes acting on the original created Kinds.
Evolution explains nothing more than the scientifically valid phenomenon of Natural Selection, and this isn’t contested by Creation Scientists.

daithifleming wrote: »

.......however it is impossible to rule the existence of 'A' God out.

.....on this we CAN agree......see above for the PROOF!!!!:D

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

http://www.afaf.org.uk/

I had a look at that link. In the middle of the articles they reference to is one entitled :

"Faith threat to free speech".

There's other titles in there too, which suggest a similar stance, such as this one where a CoE-based university suppressed any academic stance which challenged the church's teaching.

I'm not entirely sure they support what you think, wolfsbane. They seem to be arguing - at least in part - that scientific views should not be suppressed on the grounds that the religious find them offensive. Indeed, I haven't managed to find a single argument in there suggesting that it is the suppression of religiously-driven viewpoints which they take issue with....but I'm open to correction on that.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

1. The fact that all ‘effects’ are observed to have a ‘cause’ of an equivalent magnitude means that the ‘biggest effect of all’ (the creation of all matter, time and space) must also have an equally big ‘cause’ and only God is capable of being this ‘Ultimate Cause’.

Indeed, which is why the 'big bang' theory is a far better explanation than God is for that effect, which is backed up by the fact that the universe is expanding from a singular point!!! :):cool:

J C wrote: »

2. The fact that all processes in the Universe work like clockwork, and precision machines are invariably observed to have an intelligent maker means that there is a ‘clockmaker of the Universe’ – and He is God.

Using that logic, anything complicated enough to make precision machines must have been designed. So who designed God? And who designed Gods designer? etc, etc. :D:cool::)

J C wrote: »

3. The fact that all energy in the Universe is ‘winding down’ means that some all-powerful ‘entity’ must have ‘wound it up’ – again the only possible solution is an all-powerful God acting outside of the physical laws of the Universe.

What?

J C wrote: »

4. The fact that life shows massive amounts of purposeful information and information is invariably observed to ultimately have an intelligent source proves that a massive intelligence aka God created it.

No, it has been proven how this process works, and it doesn't require a creator. :eek::eek:

J C wrote: »

5. The fact that no increase in genetic information has ever been observed in living organisms indicates that all of life was created with the same or more genetic information than it now possesses. Because it has been mathematically proven that undirected processes cannot produce the precise bio-molecules required for life only God could do that.

SIGH, the process is not undirected. You know it isn't. You are a liar.

J C wrote: »

6. The fact that life has never been observed to arise spontaneously means that it must have been created and the only plausible ‘Creator’ is God

That is true, it hasn't been observed and science doesn't know the answer to this... yet. Think about what science knew 100 years ago compared to what we know now. Scientists will discover the origin of life, that is certain, and it won't be a God hypothesis. :D:D:):):)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know the geology of Ireland very well, and it really isn't anything like the deposits of a vast flood.

I too know the geology of Ireland intimately.........
and it has Noah's Flood 'written' all over it.......from the huge (Sedimentary) Limestone deposit under the Central Plain and in the Burren to the (Sedimentary) Sandstones in Munster.
Equally, Noah's Flood was also marked by enormous tectonic upheavals and volcanism.....as exemplified by the Granite in the Wicklow and Donegal Hills and the Basalt flows on the Antrim plateau......as well as the metamorphc shales that we encounter across mid-Ulster!!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

You are certainly welcome to claim conspiracy, but that's hardly going to persuade me, since I'd have to be part of it.

.....eh ...em .....'Guidestones'......Frá Andrew Bertie.......Supreme Being.....

.....COUGH!!!!:eek::D:)

........and speaking of 'population control'........here is an interesting news story from Australia where a leading doctor is proposing that parents have Carbon Taxes imposed on the birth of their children.....and annually thereafter.....based on 'the polluter pays principle'!!!:eek:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

The proposed $5,000 tax is unlikely to put off most people from having children........in view of the fact that the estimated costs of rearing a child is about a half a million Euro already!!!!
.......and people on low incomes wouldn't be able to pay the tax.....and would therefore presumably have to be exempted from it!!!

.....apparently, the 'Baby Tax' plan won praise from another high-profile doctor, called Garry Egger, who said "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers"

On this thread, 'population control' ISN'T spoken about AT ALL!!!!:eek:
........at least, not since I pointed out that nine out of ten people would have to have no children in order to reduce the population of the World to the 500 million proposed on the 'Guidestones'!!!!!:eek:
.....and Scofflaw became afraid........and 'spooked' all of the other Evolutionists into silence on the issue!!!:D

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I too know the geology of Ireland intimately.........
and it has Noah's Flood 'written' all over it.......from the huge (Sedimentary) Limestone deposit under the Central Plain and in the Burren to the (Sedimentary) Sandstones in Munster.
Equally, Noah's Flood was also marked by enormous tectonic upheavals and volcanism.....as exemplified by the Granite in the Wicklow and Donegal Hills and the Basalt flow on the Antrim plateau......as well as the metamorphc shales that we encounter across mid-Ulster!!!!

I love this kind of thing...now we just need the steps between "the Flood was marked by enormous tectonic upheavals" and there being granites in Leinster. We evolutionist geologists claim to know why they're there, and predict their chemistry, understand their age relations, know what they were intruded into and stuff like that - so we'd be very interested to see anything approaching that level of detail.

You do understand that we can tell the difference between sediments that have undergone contact with magma while still wet and unconsolidated, and sediments that had already solidified into rock before contact? There's no room in your time scheme for rock, I'm afraid - we should be standing on (or sinking into) the still-sloppy remains of the Flood.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

I too know the geology of Ireland intimately.........
and it has Noah's Flood 'written' all over it.......from the huge (Sedimentary) Limestone deposit under the Central Plain and in the Burren to the (Sedimentary) Sandstones in Munster.
Equally, Noah's Flood was also marked by enormous tectonic upheavals and volcanism.....as exemplified by the Granite in the Wicklow and Donegal Hills and the Basalt flow on the Antrim plateau......as well as the metamorphc shales that we encounter across mid-Ulster!!!!

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant? Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian? At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"? Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous? how did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

And considering the brief duration of the flood (40 days) allow for the intrusion and slow cooling of a coarse grained orogenic granite? How also did the Caledonian mountain chain erode to the extent we see them today, with only thin schist septa visible as the roof of the plutons (Visible today as the mica schist atop Lugnacoille and Conavalla) At what point was the Cretaceous chalk laid down below the tertiary Basalt seen in the giants Causeway province in the north?

these are just some questions of the top of my head, and I would be interested in hearing your answers. I have only recently graduated from college with a degree in geology and these revelations of yours turn my established world upside down. from which journal did you obtain this info?


Awaiting your reply.

Ekancone

Hot Dog wrote: »

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant? Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian? At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"? Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous? how did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

And considering the brief duration of the flood (40 days) allow for the intrusion and slow cooling of a coarse grained orogenic granite? How also did the Caledonian mountain chain erode to the extent we see them today, with only thin schist septa visible as the roof of the plutons (Visible today as the mica schist atop Lugnacoille and Conavalla) At what point was the Cretaceous chalk laid down below the tertiary Basalt seen in the giants Causeway province in the north?

these are just some questions of the top of my head, and I would be interested in hearing your answers. I have only recently graduated from college with a degree in geology and these revelations of yours turn my established world upside down. from which journal did you obtain this info?


Awaiting your reply.

Beautiful.

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

I love this kind of thing...now we just need the steps between "the Flood was marked by enormous tectonic upheavals" and there being granites in Leinster. We evolutionist geologists claim to know why they're there, and predict their chemistry, understand their age relations, know what they were intruded into and stuff like that - so we'd be very interested to see anything approaching that level of detail.

....and I love this kind of thing as well!!!:eek::D

You see, Noah's Flood was an unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted, worldwide catastrophe........so the complexity observed in the Geological Record is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted and worldwide nature of this catastrophe........
..........all we differ on is time.......millions of years, in your case........less than 500 years (for the Flood and it's resultant Ice Age, to abate), in my case!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

You do understand that we can tell the difference between sediments that have undergone contact with magma while still wet and unconsolidated, and sediments that had already solidified into rock before contact? There's no room in your time scheme for rock, I'm afraid - we should be standing on (or sinking into) the still-sloppy remains of the Flood.

......how long does concrete take to set????

Sedimentary lithification, during Noah's Flood was measured in DAYS!!!!!:D
Igneous cooling was measured in months/years......as was rock metamorphosis!!!!:D
......so there was at various times and locations, during the Flood Catastrophe, and it's aftermath, interactions between solidified and unsolidified igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock in every possible permutation!!!:D

..and indeed the 'after-shocks' are still ongoing but seriously abated, today!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

Praying for you
J C:D

Hot Dog

Do you regularly do field work on the back of a pink elephant?

And, please address my points, with actual science, not "its mad complicated!"

Evidence, journals, personal observations.

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

....and I love this kind of thing as well!!!:eek::D

You see, Noah's Flood was an unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted, worldwide catastrophe........so the complexity observed in the Geological Record is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted and worldwide nature of this catastrophe........

In other words, they're the result of a flood sui generis - entirely unlike any other flood - indeed, unlike any other observed event whatsoever, or any modelled event or hydrodynamic process.

I can certainly see how that would work. It does rather leave things open, of course - perhaps to volcanic events unlike any other, or asteroid impacts unlike any other, or indeed the dropping of a shoe quite like any other, to name but three of the infinite range of possibilities conjured into being by totally unique and utterly uncharacteristic events.

J C wrote: »

..........all we differ on is time.......millions of years, in your case........less than 500 years (for the Flood and it's resultant Ice Age, to abate), in my case!!!:D

......how long does concrete take to set????

Sedimentary lithification, during Noah's Flood was measured in DAYS!!!!!:D
Igneous cooling was measured in months/years......as was rock metamorphosis!!!!:D
......so there was at various times and locations, during the Flood Catastrophe, and it's aftermath, interactions between solidified and unsolidified igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock in every possible permutation!!!:D

Indeed - much more efficient that way, of course. Not seen these days, alas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Sorry JC, you seemed to miss Hot Dog's post above. Here it is:

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant? Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian? At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"? Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous? how did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

And considering the brief duration of the flood (40 days) allow for the intrusion and slow cooling of a coarse grained orogenic granite? How also did the Caledonian mountain chain erode to the extent we see them today, with only thin schist septa visible as the roof of the plutons (Visible today as the mica schist atop Lugnacoille and Conavalla) At what point was the Cretaceous chalk laid down below the tertiary Basalt seen in the giants Causeway province in the north?

these are just some questions of the top of my head, and I would be interested in hearing your answers. I have only recently graduated from college with a degree in geology and these revelations of yours turn my established world upside down. from which journal did you obtain this info?


Awaiting your reply.

Or are you up to the usual creationist trick of avoiding the evidence?

pH

It's been pointed out a number of times that for creationists, evolution is the least of their problems, and yet it's the one they continue to bash their heads against.

There is a simplistic notion out there that evolution is all that is standing between creationists and their beloved idea that god designed and created everything, and if we could stop teaching it then all would be rosy again in the garden of Eden.

For example, at a recent Republican debate the candidates were asked straight out if they believed in evolution. Why? Why not ask them if they believed in plate tectonics, geology, cosmology? Why do J C and others keep referring to those who don't believe in their creationism as evolutionists? Why not be honest and call them scientists?

Next time there's a Republican debate why not ask them if they believe that hundreds of meters of chalk (containing Coccolithophores) was formed in a few hundred days during Noah's flood, rather than at a rate of a couple of cm per 1,000 years over 80m years.

Galvasean

pH wrote: »

For example, at a recent Republican debate the candidates were asked straight out if they believed in evolution. Why? Why not ask them if they believed in plate tectonics, geology, cosmology? Why do J C and others keep referring to those who don't believe in their creationism as evolutionists?

Some of us like being called 'people'. :cool:

robindch

daithifleming wrote: »

Or are you up to the usual creationist trick of avoiding the evidence?

No, I suspect he's up to the usual creationist trick of avoiding the question. Avoiding the evidence, and avoiding the conclusion come after that.

sdep

pH wrote: »

It's been pointed out a number of times that for creationists, evolution is the least of their problems, and yet it's the one they continue to bash their heads against.

There is a simplistic notion out there that evolution is all that is standing between creationists and their beloved idea that god designed and created everything, and if we could stop teaching it then all would be rosy again in the garden of Eden.

For example, at a recent Republican debate the candidates were asked straight out if they believed in evolution. Why? Why not ask them if they believed in plate tectonics, geology, cosmology?

Well all that cosmology and geology is rather esoteric stuff, whereas evolution talks about animals, which are much more familiar, and is a very straightforward, intuitive idea.

[Edit:] And everyone loves a T. rex.

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

It's been pointed out a number of times that for creationists, evolution is the least of their problems, and yet it's the one they continue to bash their heads against.

There is a simplistic notion out there that evolution is all that is standing between creationists and their beloved idea that god designed and created everything, and if we could stop teaching it then all would be rosy again in the garden of Eden.

For example, at a recent Republican debate the candidates were asked straight out if they believed in evolution. Why? Why not ask them if they believed in plate tectonics, geology, cosmology? Why do J C and others keep referring to those who don't believe in their creationism as evolutionists? Why not be honest and call them scientists?

Next time there's a Republican debate why not ask them if they believe that hundreds of meters of chalk (containing Coccolithophores) was formed in a few hundred days during Noah's flood, rather than at a rate of a couple of cm per 1,000 years over 80m years.

My own view is that the essential point is mankind's unique status. The whole idea is to be able to deny that we are descended from apes - indeed, to deny and repudiate any diminution of mankind's "most special" standing. It becomes a personal matter when the "special standing" accorded to humans by religion becomes part of the individual's sense of self-worth - by debying his "origin story" as God's favourite child, you directly challenge his sense of self-worth.

That's also the reason that the justifications used by Creationists bear such a striking similarity to the justifications used to tell ourselves we're still wonderful - and also why conversion stories often hinge on a breakdown of the old sense of self-worth (through alcoholism or crime etc).

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant? Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian? At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"? Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous? how did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

And considering the brief duration of the flood (40 days) allow for the intrusion and slow cooling of a coarse grained orogenic granite? How also did the Caledonian mountain chain erode to the extent we see them today, with only thin schist septa visible as the roof of the plutons (Visible today as the mica schist atop Lugnacoille and Conavalla) At what point was the Cretaceous chalk laid down below the tertiary Basalt seen in the giants Causeway province in the north?

these are just some questions of the top of my head, and I would be interested in hearing your answers. I have only recently graduated from college with a degree in geology and these revelations of yours turn my established world upside down. from which journal did you obtain this info?


Awaiting your reply.

Dathaifleming wrote: »

Beautiful

Yes indeed, Hot Dog has given a very beautiful account of the Flood Geology of Ireland.......I guess you could call it 'Geological Poetry'......it is so beautiful....I almost cried!!!:eek::D

Anyway, Noah's Flood was an unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted, worldwide catastrophe........so the complexity observed in the Geological Record of Ireland is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted and worldwide nature of this catastrophe........
..........all we differ on is time.......millions of years, in your case........less than 500 years (for the Flood and it's resultant Ice Age, to abate), in my case!!!:D:)

Sedimentary lithification, during Noah's Flood was measured in DAYS!!!!!
Igneous cooling was measured in months/years......as was rock metamorphosis!!!!
......so there was at various times and locations, during the Flood Catastrophe, and it's aftermath, interactions between solidified and unsolidified igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock in every possible permutation!!!:D:)

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

In other words, they're the result of a flood sui generis - entirely unlike any other flood - indeed, unlike any other observed event whatsoever, or any modelled event or hydrodynamic process.

.........yes....The Flood was UNPRECEDENTED......both since and before!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

I can certainly see how that would work. It does rather leave things open, of course - perhaps to volcanic events unlike any other, or asteroid impacts unlike any other, or indeed the dropping of a shoe quite like any other, to name but three of the infinite range of possibilities conjured into being by totally unique and utterly uncharacteristic events.

......very valid observations......you're becoming quite an accomplished Creation Scientist, Scofflaw!!!!:eek::D

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed - much more efficient that way, of course. Not seen these days, alas.

.......yes....The Flood processes were UNPRECEDENTED......both since and before!!!:D

Scofflaw wrote: »

cordially,
Scofflaw

Praying for you
J C:)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Yes indeed, Hot Dog has given a very beautiful account of the Flood Geology of Ireland.......I guess you could call it 'Geological Poetry'......it is so beautiful....I almost cried!!!:eek::D

Anyway, Noah's Flood was an unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted, worldwide catastrophe........so the complexity observed in the Geological Record of Ireland is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex, multi-fasceted and worldwide nature of this catastrophe........
..........all we differ on is time.......millions of years, in your case........less than 500 years (for the Flood and it's resultant Ice Age, to abate), in my case!!!:D:)

Sedimentary lithification, during Noah's Flood was measured in DAYS!!!!!
Igneous cooling was measured in months/years......as was rock metamorphosis!!!!
......so there was at various times and locations, during the Flood Catastrophe, and it's aftermath, interactions between solidified and unsolidified igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock in every possible permutation!!!:D:)

You didn't answer his questions. Here they are:

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant?

Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian?

At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"?

Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous?

How did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

You should be able to answer these questions, with you knowing the geology of Ireland intimately...

Hot Dog

J C wrote: »

Sedimentary lithification, during Noah's Flood was measured in DAYS!!!!!
Igneous cooling was measured in months/years......as was rock metamorphosis!!!!
......so there was at various times and locations, during the Flood Catastrophe, and it's aftermath, interactions between solidified and unsolidified igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rock in every possible permutation!!!

Okay, you claim that the laws of physics were fundamentally different only 6000 years ago, prove it.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence

But you still have not explained how there are vastly different facies in the Irish province, form orogenic granites to basinal limestones to nearshore beach sands all from the one inundation event.

I await an explanation for this, not a shrug and a claim of "unprecedented multifaceted flood" Perhaps you could elaborate on some of these facets? Perhaps the effects of this unprecedented water column on the Irish offshore basins, and the ensuing implications for our petroleum prospectivity? i have some friends in the Petroleum Affairs Division who might take you on as a consultant.

Simply put put, if you believe that the Leinster granite, the tertiary basalts of the north, the limestone midlands and everything else in your bull-in-a-chinashop rampage through the geology of Ireland is a flood deposit, you are wrong. Thats a fact.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

You didn't answer his questions. Here they are:

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant?

Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian?

At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"?

Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous?

How did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

You should be able to answer these questions, with you knowing the geology of Ireland intimately...

......give me a chance to answer Hot Dog's questions.....I am but one Creation Scientist.......while the Evolutionists on this thread appear to be 'Legion'!!!!!:eek::D

......yes, as somebody scientifically qualified in Geological Science......I can answer Hot Dog's 'beautiful' questions.......in my sleep......but all in it's own good time!!!!!!:)

......please wait for my next post!!!

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

......give me a chance to answer Hot Dog's questions.....I am but one Creation Scientist.......while the Evolutionists on this thread appear to be 'Legion'!!!!!:eek::D

......yes, as somebody scientifically qualified in Geological Science......I can answer Hot Dog's 'beautiful' questions.......in my sleep......but all in it's own good time!!!!!!:)

......please wait for my next post!!!

Right, well if that is the case you surely could have answered him by now instead of scurrying through creationist sites like you are really doing. I don't believe that you are a scientist, just for the record. No self respecting academic would write the way you do when trying to make a point. You never seem to construct anything resembling a fluid argument. If you are a scientist, i dread to think what your papers must look like.

Zombrex

We await the inevitable avalanche of links to articles on Answers in Genesis that completely fail to actually answer the questions put forward ....

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

So, why pray tell why the sedimentary strata shows fossils of vastly different ages (and different "types") which today are no longer extant?

.....any differences between fossil and living creatures can be accounted for by speciation/variation since the Flood as well as extinctions during and since the Flood!!!!

The so-called 'vastly different ages' exist entirely in the 'fevered imaginations' of Evolutionists......please note that most species found as fossils have similar....and in some cases, EXACTLY the same representative creatures ALIVE today !!!

The Evolutionist contention in relation to fossil 'ages' is the same as me saying "Look at the 20 million year old Robin eating the 300 million year old Wood Louse".......when they both are contemporaneous and likely to be less than ONE YEAR OLD!!!:D:eek:

Hot Dog wrote: »

Indeed, why does the limestone plateau of the midlands show such varied lithologies, from the basinal Calp to the shallowing mud banks of the Waulsortian?

There was no shortage of Calcium Carbonate enriched waters that were released by the 'fountains of the abyss'......and this precipitated out to form the Limestones....and provided the cementing agent for the other Sedimentary Rocks.:D
There also was no shortage of MUD in the FLOOD!!!!:eek:

Hot Dog wrote: »

At what point did the metalliferous brines of the Irish type deposits infiltrate these "carbonate flood deposits"?

Localised volcanic heating 'drove off' steam from trapped seawater to form the metalliferous brines that inevitably infiltrated the simultaneously settling carbonate flood deposits!!

Hot Dog wrote: »

Why do you consider the carbonates of the Irish midlands to be biblical in age, yet consider the vastly different clastic deposits of the Bray Head Formation, The Ribband Group and the ORS in the Munster basin to be synchronous? how did an otherwise Homogeneous depositional episode create such widely differing lithologies?

......the complexity observed in these synchronous groups is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex and multi-fasceted nature of the Flood Catastrophe.

Hot Dog wrote: »

And considering the brief duration of the flood (40 days) allow for the intrusion and slow cooling of a coarse grained orogenic granite?

The coarseness of Granite is due to the nature of the original volcanic material which formed it....and any slow cooling was measured in months or years......and NOT millions of years!!!:D

Hot Dog wrote: »

How also did the Caledonian mountain chain erode to the extent we see them today, with only thin schist septa visible as the roof of the plutons (Visible today as the mica schist atop Lugnacoille and Conavalla)

This erosion was due to the movement of large volumes of water over a short time ......rather than relatively small amounts of water over a large amount of time......
......the post-Flood Ice Age also contributed greatly to the erosion of Caledonian rock formations!!!:)

Hot Dog wrote: »

At what point was the Cretaceous chalk laid down below the tertiary Basalt seen in the giants Causeway province in the north?

....the Cretaceous Chalk was laid down immediately before the Basalt Flows commenced in North Antrim!!!:eek:

Hot Dog wrote: »

these are just some questions of the top of my head, and I would be interested in hearing your answers. I have only recently graduated from college with a degree in geology and these revelations of yours turn my established world upside down. from which journal did you obtain this info?

Congratulation on your recent graduation.......and may I wish you happiness and fulfillment as you set out on your new career in Geology!!

......when I attended Geology lectures I was told exactly what you were told....and I believed it all.......
I found out later that there WAS an alternative explanation......and when I evaluated it....I found to my surprise, that it was a superior explanation and made more sense than the Evolutionist one!!!!!!!!!!:D

Keep an open mind on EVERYTHING you are told.......but don't tell the Evolutionists ......IF you find Creationism to be the superior explanation......
.......they can be highly emotional creatures!!!!:D

.......and they don't like jokes about 'millions of years' EITHER!!!:D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

.....any differences between fossil and living creatures can be accounted for by speciation/variation since the Flood as well as extinctions during and since the Flood!!!!

The so-called 'vastly different ages' exist entirely in the 'fevered imaginations' of Evolutionists......please note that most species found as fossils have similar....and in some cases, EXACTLY the same representative creatures ALIVE today !!!

The Evolutionist contention in relation to fossil 'ages' is the same as me saying "Look at the 20 million year old Robin eating the 300 million year old Wood Louse".......when they both are contemporaneous and likely to be less than ONE YEAR OLD!!!:D:eek:




There was no shortage of Calcium Carbonate enriched waters that were released by the 'fountains of the abyss'......and this precipitated out to form the Limestones....and provided the cementing agent for the other Sedimentary Rocks.:D
There also was no shortage of MUD in the FLOOD!!!!:eek:


Localised volcanic heating 'drove off' steam from trapped seawater to form the metalliferous brines that inevitably infiltrated the simultaneously settling carbonate flood deposits!!



......the complexity observed in these synchronous groups is a direct result of the unprecedented, complex and multi-fasceted nature of the Flood Catastrophe.


The coarseness of Granite is due to the nature of the original volcanic material which formed it....and any slow cooling was measured in months or years......and NOT millions of years!!!:D


This erosion was due to the movement of large volumes of water over a short time ......rather than relatively small amounts of water over a large amount of time......
......the post-Flood Ice Age also contributed greatly to the erosion of Caledonian rock formations!!!:)


....the Cretaceous Chalk was laid down immediately before the Basalt Flows commenced in North Antrim!!!:eek:



Congratulation on your recent graduation.......and may I wish you happiness and fulfillment as you set out on your new career in Geology!!

......when I attended Geology lectures I was told exactly what you were told....and I believed it all.......
I found out later that there WAS an alternative explanation......and when I evaluated it....I found to my surprise, that it was a superior explanation and made more sense than the Evolutionist one!!!!!!!!!!:D

[/QUOTE]

Yes i am sure that Hot Dog had plenty of evolutionist lecturers teaching him geology. Oh man...

You clearly haven't studied geology, that is more than evident in the way you addressed his questions. You don't even need to be an expert in geology to know that.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

We await the inevitable avalanche of links to articles on Answers in Genesis that completely fail to actually answer the questions put forward ....

......no need for any links to answer Hot Dog's relatively straighforward questions!!!!:D:)

......so can we get back (briefly) to Scofflaw and the 'Guidestones' and the Rosicrucians......and the Baby Tax Plan to 'elimainate birth as we know it'!!!!

......and WHAT is causing YOU ALL to be so AFRAID?????:):D

J C

Daithifleming wrote: »

Yes i am sure that Hot Dog had plenty of evolutionist lecturers teaching him geology. Oh man...

You clearly haven't studied geology, that is more than evident in the way you addressed his questions. You don't even need to be an expert in geology to know that.

I think that it will be clear to any Geologist.....that I know what I am talking about......

.....anyway..........it should also be clear that Geology is one of the sciences where the divergence between Evolutionary and Creationist explanations are at their GREATEST.......so it would be reasonable to designate as 'Evolutionist'........the position that rocks (and their constituent fossils) formed over millions of years.......whatever your actual views on the validity of this position!!!:D:eek:

......surely we can agree on this basic and patently obvious idea!!!!

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

Okay, you claim that the laws of physics were ut you still have not explained how there are vastly different facies in the Irish province, form orogenic granites to basinal limestones to nearshore beach sands all from the one inundation event.

......the explanation is that it WASN'T one inundation event......but a complex series of catastrophic events over a timespan of a few hundred years......with the most intense Geological phenomena lasting less than two years!!!:D

Hot Dog wrote: »

i have some friends in the Petroleum Affairs Division who might take you on as a consultant.

.....now there is progress.....a job offer from an Evolutionist to a Creation Scientist!!!!!!!:D:)

Hot Dog wrote: »

Simply put put, if you believe that the Leinster granite, the tertiary basalts of the north, the limestone midlands and everything else in your bull-in-a-chinashop rampage through the geology of Ireland is a flood deposit, you are wrong.

......"you're quite entitled to your opinion".....as Galileo apparently, once said to the Pope!!!!:D:eek:

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Right, well if that is the case you surely could have answered him by now instead of scurrying through creationist sites like you are really doing. I don't believe that you are a scientist, just for the record. No self respecting academic would write the way you do when trying to make a point. You never seem to construct anything resembling a fluid argument. If you are a scientist, i dread to think what your papers must look like.

.......why should science be dull.......it provides the most exciting prospects for Humanity......after salvation?????!!!!:D