The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

..No!!:)

...but I can tell you they didn't take billions of years!!!

Trillions??

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Trillions??

...something of the order of weeks!!!!:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...there is such a thing as industrial secrets ... and know-how!!:D

There is also such a thing as making stuff up, such as the claim that Creationists actually use their nonsense to actual do stuff.

The proof is in the pudding. If Creationism was true it should be possible to use Creationist theories to predict things about the Earth before they are discovered, as evolution and geology has been doing for decades.

They don't. Creationists can't demonstrate their nonsense is true. All the smilie faces in the world won't help JC

End. Of. Story

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...something of the order of weeks!!!!:)

Ok that'd definitely mean alot of earthquakes then,

Right, so then how do explain that parts of America can be perfectly matched to Antarctica? More so, Australia is sinking northwards (gps can confirm this) and American and Europe are moving apart by 2 cm per year how do you explain that all continents were once joined together? Or do you think they weren't?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok that'd definitely mean alot of earthquakes then,

..yes, there were massive earthquakes and worse !!!!:eek::D

Malty_T wrote: »

Right, so then how do explain that parts of America can be perfectly matched to Australia? More so, Australia is sinking northwards (gps can confirm this) and American and Europe are moving apart by 2 cm per year how do you explain that all continents were once joined together? Or do you think they weren't?

...current movement rates are not an indicator of past movements under catastrophic conditions!!!

...and the supposed 'match' between the western coast of Africa and the eastern coast of South America is an optical co-incidence based on current sea levels!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

There is also such a thing as making stuff up, such as the claim that Creationists actually use their nonsense to actual do stuff.

The proof is in the pudding. If Creationism was true it should be possible to use Creationist theories to predict things about the Earth before they are discovered, as evolution and geology has been doing for decades.

They don't. Creationists can't demonstrate their nonsense is true. All the smilie faces in the world won't help JC

End. Of. Story

..you just have to laugh (or else you would cry) at such naivety!!!:D

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...and the supposed 'match' between the western coast of Africa and the eastern coast of South America is an optical co-incidence based on current sea levels!!!

Ok...so are the mountain ranges just an illusion then? What formed them?
Also you never explained why Australia is sinking?

..current movement rates are not an indicator of past movements under catastrophic conditions!!!

Wow that explains alot:rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Malty_T wrote: »

It can be JC.
You are aware that when drilling for oil you have take into account the effects of contintental drift and plate tectonics that have taken place and shaped the crust by a process* of millions of years?

In fact, here's an interesting aside. Geologist didn't discover about plate tectonics and drifts until the 1950s, however oil companies were using it in their calculations well before that, it's just oil employees rarely published public technical papers and why give away the secret?
Not sure how 'creation' science would have helped there...

*Still going today too.

I note the abiotic and biotic origins of oil is still debated. JC goes for the former, another creationist goes for the latter:
The Origin of Oil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

As to how long it took for the continents to reach their present positions:
Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.

Actually twas a suspected atheist in 1785:P
http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/hutton.htm
(That's what I'd regard as the first 'full' theory)

Wiki says it goes back even further than that to the likes of Ben Franklin, Francis Bacon and some guy named Abraham Ortelius (c.1600)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.

And I note too that you or JC have not answered the original question ... :rolleyes:

You must know that what you are claiming is nonsense, you make a claim that you can't back up, how can you not. Do you care?

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note the abiotic and biotic origins of oil is still debated. JC goes for the former, another creationist goes for the latter:
The Origin of Oil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

As to how long it took for the continents to reach their present positions:
Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics

...there certainly is some biotic oil and it forms very fast indeed. Artificial compression and heating of organic matter can produce oil in as little as two hours!!!!

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

...undoubtedly similar processes occurred during the Flood when decomposing animal remains were thermally converted to oil when they were buried and compressed by the tectonic processes that were ongoing in the aftermath of the Flood.

...practically all oil wells contain some biotic component and/or impurities ... but the large oilfields produce almost 100% abiotic oil.

Coal does not take millions of years to form either ... peat can be artificially 'coalified' within a few weeks.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

And I note too that you or JC have not answered the original question ... :rolleyes:

...which was???

Wicknight wrote: »

You must know that what you are claiming is nonsense

...I'm not the one claiming that muck turned spontaneously into Man ... with nothing added but time and mistakes..
...now that's real nonesense!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok...so are the mountain ranges just an illusion then? What formed them?
Also you never explained why Australia is sinking?

...mountain ranges are real phenomena...and most modern mountains were formed by enormous rapid tectonic and catastrophic processes during the Flood and its aftermath.

...there are still some residual tectonic stresses, especially on the 'Pacific Ring of Fire' and along the 'Mid Atlantic Ridge'

Malty_T wrote: »

Wow that explains alot:rolleyes:

...always glad to provide a wow factor!!:D:)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...which was???

Name a geological discovery, such as a oil deposit, that was found due to the direct prediction formed from a Creationist theory.

Something that was successfully predicted by a Creationist theory.

J C wrote: »

...I'm not the one claiming that muck turned spontaneously into Man ... with nothing added but time and mistakes..

No, you are the one claiming Creationism is a predictive science despite being unable to back this up with any examples.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Name a geological discovery, such as a oil deposit, that was found due to the direction prediction formed from a Creationist theory.

Something that was successfully predicted by a Creationist theory.

...no can do!!:D:)

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.

Origin of Species was only published in 1859 - you're not exactly giving him a lot of time to familiarize himself with evolutionary theory, are you, before pouncing on him and claiming him as one of your own?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...no can do!!:D:)

Shocking :rolleyes:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...no can do!!:D:)

If you can't name one, you could at least reveal the process by which one was achieved. Make it in the distant past so that you're not giving away the proprieties belonging to someone.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Origin of Species was only published in 1859 - you're not exactly giving him a lot of time to familiarize himself with evolutionary theory, are you, before pouncing on him and claiming him as one of your own?

...so did Darwin not know his 'Continental Drift' ... from his 'Genetic Drift'?!!! :D:P

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

If you can't name one, you could at least reveal the process by which one was achieved. Make it in the distant past so that you're not giving away the proprieties belonging to someone.

...that would be industrial knowhow!!!:):D

...why do you want to know???

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note the abiotic and biotic origins of oil is still debated. JC goes for the former, another creationist goes for the latter:
The Origin of Oil
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

So is the flatness of the Earth :rolleyes:

Can you provide an example of where predictions of a Creationist theory was actually used to do something useful, such as find an oil deposit?

Do you understand why a complete lack of useful predictions from Creationism would raise many an eyebrow from the scientific community who Creationists are demanding take them seriously?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note too that it was a creationist who first introduced the idea of continental drift, back in 1859.

Weren't most people Creationists back then?

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Shocking :rolleyes:

...you don't say!!!:rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you provide an example of where predictions of a Creationist theory was actually used to do something useful, such as find an oil deposit?

Do you understand why a complete lack of useful predictions from Creationism would raise many an eyebrow from the scientific community who Creationists are demanding take them seriously?

...I don't really care whether assorted Atheists take me seriously or not!!!!:eek:

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...that would be industrial knowhow!!!:):D

...why do you want to know???

So are you saying that even though oil reserves have dropped immensely the techniques used haven't changed a single bit. C'mon JC there is definitely an example out there from the distant past that doesn't give away any proprieties or advantages..

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So are you saying that even though oil reserves have dropped immensely the techniques used haven't changed a single bit. C'mon JC there is definitely an example out there from the distant past that doesn't give away any proprieties or advantages..

...proven oil reserves are rising ... not falling ... have you been watching too much Al Gore recently!!!!!!!!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=125471&d=14&m=8&y=2009

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...proven oil reserves are rising ... not falling... have you been watching too much Al Gore recently!!!!

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=125471&d=14&m=8&y=2009

I've never actually gotten around to watching Mr Gore.
Are you still sticking to the techniques have not changed??

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

I've never actually gotten around to watching Mr Gore.
Are you still sticking to the techniques have not changed??

...techniques (and theories) have changed dramatically!!!!!

....please bear in mind that Creation Science is a rapidly developing (and ultra-modern) cutting edge science!!!:eek::)

...are you a (petroleum) geologist??

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...techniques (and theories) have changed dramatically!!!!!

....please bear in mind that Creation Science is a rapidly developing (and ultra-modern) cutting edge science!!!:eek::)

So, I take it that, an example of an old out dated technique would be no issue then so?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

So, I take it that, an example of an old out dated technique would be no issue then so?

...no

Turtwig

Why?