@BeatMe is it possible that the flood happened?

sure

possible is everything, even god could exist

but it's highly unlike from my point of view

and to regards the flood, even unlikely in the view of respected christians

and more unlikely in the view of respected scientists

i don't claim to know everything, but I claim to be open

you instead are framed by the bible, if it's written there it must be true

and thats simply not the case

@BeatMe Ok I will open up to you

everything we know today shows that genesis is not possible like it has been written

@BeatMe I will let you know exactly why I believe the way that I do

@BeatMe IF you're willing to accept my personal testimony as truth. I'm not going to lie to you.

@BeatMe It is my truth and a truth that I cannot prove to you.

@BeatMe simply what I've experienced.

@BeatMe Are you willing to withhold your judgement?

your personal testimony?

jonathan, it's not about our own feelings, or what either one of us thinks

it's about to be realistic

and it's just not realistic to believe that our world has been created 10k years ago if everything, absolutely everything points to a much much older earth

and thats the thing I can't respect

I feel like it should be said: Christianity is not science. It's faith. The two can be used to support one another, but belief in one thing or another does not necessarily preclude science from believing something else.

if I had faith that there is no gravity, but small invisible gnomes who push things down you don't think the theory of gravity precludes it?

@BeatMe Not at all. Religion is not science.

sorry, i don't get your point

And anyways, who's to say that the gravitron (or whetever it's called) isn't a gnome?

:P

;)

@BeatMe you haven't heard my testimony and you've already begun to judge

What I was going to tell you is one of the reasons that I believe the way that I do.

@BeatMe I see that you're an arrogant teen, possibly 20's that thinks they know everything because they watched a dawkins youtube video

(and now we dive into Philosophy) It's about viewpoints. Christianity comes from the realm of the internal. There is, for example, a philosophical belief (nihilism) that nothing is real. How can we disprove that? Similar, how can we disprove the belief that gnomes are responsible for gravity?

Let's be respectful.

richard, jonathan is using science to prove his believe

science that is wrong

So?

wrong because why? because you deemed it?

We can come back to the gnome belief, if you wish.

not me deemed it wrong, several other thousands scientist agree with each other, that your arguments are false

you take exactly those points that might indicate a young earth or whatever, but chose to ignore everything else

@BeatMe So, "millions of Elvis fans can't be wrong?" That's a poor argument, really. Look at all the religions that are "wrong".

how many times did I explain radiometric dating to you and you still don't get it

@BeatMe I fully understand radiometric dating

fully understand it

no you don't, if you did, you wouldn believe the earth is 10k years old

thats the point

I also fully understand that many scientists believe in OEC while still many believe in YEC while many say that neither have proper evidence

you ignore the two view points and choose to go with the masses

your problem is that if the masses were YEC you'd jump on board with YEC and yell at OEC

and you don't even realize that about yourself

richard, gladly the guidelines of the scientific method don't care how many people believe in something, but what can be proven to be right

independently

Let me ask you again. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A GLOBAL FLOOD

yes or no, please

yep

it's possible that unicorns exist, whats your point?

Let me ask you about one of your science bits

yes it absolutely is possible that unicorns existed. There's no anomaly about them

no different then a rhino that went extinct

is it possible for you that there was no global flood

is it possible for you that no god exists?

I see the evidence of such a flood. Yes it's possible that a global flood did not happen.

no, its not possible for me that no God exists

There is a God. Period.

that's what ignorant means

I KNOW

For a fact.

Let's refrain from name calling, please.

ignorant is not name calling

ignorant has a specific meaning

Hmm... Good point. Let's refrain from insults, please.

lol

So let me ask you for some scientific evidence beatme.

should be relatively easy for a scientist like yourself

i'm not a scientist, but sure ;)

How are fossils formed?

That's a pretty easy Q right?

side note: "You're ignorant of the facts" would be acceptable, imo, but a simple "You're ignorant" is more of an insult than an argument of facts.

why is that an insult?

@Richard accepted

@JonathonByrd I'm going with "gnomes", myself. :P just kidding.

hes ignorant to the possibility that no god exists

thats no insult, he said it himself

@BeatMe you should be hunting down your scientific sources right now and letting me know how fossils are formed

i'm on it ;D

@BeatMe Because "You're ignorant" without a qualifier is like saying "You're stupid"

@BeatMe That's an example of "acceptable", though, imo.

stupid has a specific meaning too

The word is a hot-button word. It's just wise to make sure to fully qualify it when using it.

it may be an insult, but it's also the truth :)

@JonathonByrd Another hot-button word. ;)

@JonathonByrd do you have some special type of preservation in mind?

fossilization in general

Insults are counter productive and the ultimate end is two people walking away angry. I prefer just to cut the conversation when I'm to the point of insulting. (Seems like there's a proverb about that.)

than I should have left quite some time ago, because ignorance brings me to the point of insulting ;)

but whatever ^^

@BeatMe let me cut down on the amount of information that you have to return. Can something fossilize in oxygen?

i don't think so, but i'm not quite sure

@BeatMe ditto

@BeatMe the point that I'm getting at, is that something has to be burried or sealed to be fossilized

i have no idea where you getting at

yes, we can agree on that ;)

I'm thinking about the geological column.

Scientist came up with the idea that over millions of years that the dirt was piled up to form columns

but science proves that, that view point is not possible because of the fossils

BECAUSE of the fossils

what?

bones have to be buried to be fossilized. which means that the amount of dirt in the columns did not form over millions of years, rather, they were formed quickly in order to bury an animal

thousands upon thousands of animals to be exact

as well as the trees that are upside down in the column

brb grabbing coffee

can you give me any source for that?

more coffee.. :)

i have difficulties following you

are you speaking of fossils in mountains?

ok im bak

had to take out the garbage too

I'm talking about all fossils. in order to have a fossil, then the animal has to be buried rapidly to seal it from the oxygen.

why does it need to be buried rapidly?

this is a single premise

ok let's state some other premises

"In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. "

the likelyhood of an animal dying on open ground and being untouched, preserving every bone in 3D

that likely-hood cannot be relied on in science

understand that the fossils that are found are preserved in 3D

do you know what that means?

an animal that dies on the ground will be preserved in 2D because gravity will pull all of the bones onto a single layer as the flesh decays

but the fossils that we are finding are preserved in 3D. meaning that the animal has all bones in their proper connections with depth being preserved

the fact that it is a fossil in 3D suggests that it needed to be covered by sediment rapidly

also, the fact that there are no marks in the animal bones suggesting that death had to be from natural causes not from murder

are you following me?

kind of

I've only stated a few premises about fossils, so let's stick to those

@Richard Aah, found it. Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.

do you have any questions about them?

@Richard Hmm... maybe that's not it.

@Richard lol

what bones are you talking about?

specially, on what bones are no marks?

90% of the bones that are found

dinosaurs

other animals

doesn't matter

source? :)

i don't think 90% of all fossils are "3d"

where do you have that figure?

i dont have a source for that. its the fact that you cannot find a fossil that had been killed by murder.

this is why scientists state that there had to be a catastrophic event that killed all of the dinosaurs

do you have a source for that fact?

this is accepted universally

than you got to provide a source ;)

but yes, catastophic event killed dinosaurs

all dinosaurs had to have died from a catastrophic event.

I don't have to provide a source for that

no

ok.

i mean no, all dinosaurs have not died from a single event

I would agree that not 100% of them died in the event. probably a couple survived that began to rebuild their numbers and then they began to go extinct

lol

but the moral of this story is as follows:

i mean it should be possible that dinosaurs that have been killed by other animals could have fossilized too right?

To make that a proper premise then we need to both accept that the remains of the fallen animal need to have been buried shortly after death

there could have been other reasons don't you see that?

plus, the fact that the dinosaurs died in 3D outrules that possibility

3D suggest that the animal was buried, then died.

we both don't know, but please go on

ok so let's restate our premises that we've just worked through

please, just come to your point

premise 1: bones need to be buried in order to be fossilized

premise 2: fossils that are preserved in 3 dimensions must have been killed by being buried. not by being killed on open ground.

conclusion: the fossils that we are finding today must have been killed by being buried by sediment.

do you agree with that logic?

i don't agree with premise 2

on what basis?

there could have been other reasons, we both are no archeologist

the might have been killed by being buried and it's likely, but they don't must

I don't see any other possibility.

could you give me an example

animals could have died by an earthslide

their bones could have been rearranged in the sediments

i'm just trying to say that there are other scenarious, that could result in fossils that are not flat

that could be on observation. so the predictions from that, would be that if the animal was alive it should show parts of the body intact while other parts are scatterd.

also, most dinosaurs (according to the general theory) did not die on impact, but because of the aftermath

if the animal was dead and it was raw bone, then those bones should show in distortion and scattered

no necessarily ;)

@BeatMe do you know why that is the theory? do you understand the basis?

alright, i think i know were you'Re going at

@BeatMe that is the theory, because scientists know that the impact would have incinerated anything in the impact zone

yep

you realize, that that meteor would have impacted several million years ago?

according to the theory :)

so you believe those scientists how fossils are made and use the same process to prove your young earth and global flood?

@BeatMe ok let's continue with what I know

but they are wrong on the age of those fossils

yes, go on

but I don't know why you're jumping around

do you know that water will remove the radioactive materials from organic material?

we have talked about that

The sources for this are everywhere. It's the reason why known dates have been thrown out of wack

because the remains were held in water

premise 3: water will remove radioactive material from dead organic material

jonathan, your doing it wrong again

excuse me?

did you just really took ages to come to the matter that carbon dating is wrong because of "leeching"?

that we talked extensively about?

we have not talked extensively about leeching. and I'm not taking ages to come to this point.

yes we did

my last two premise had nothing to do with radiometric dating

this is just another premise

and it's not relevant to anything

do you see what you're doing?

but go on ^^

I've stated my third premise

didn't they tell you why thats irrelevant?

its completely relevant because that one answer is wrong. it does not contain sources to prove that c12 will be removed along with c14

oh god

alright, go on

@BeatMe thus based upon the evidence, these animals could have been buried in a flood that lasted long enough to leach out the radiometric materials

no

can you please tell me where you read that?

from this point, you cannot give me your opinion. you must provide sources that will disrupt the basis of my premises

or did you make that theory alone

@BeatMe why so you can target the credibility of the source and not the evidence?

oh common, you deny everything everyone is telling you

no matter what I do

you ask that question and get an answer and oh, it's wrong

@BeatMe that is my theory. I have not denied ANYTHING in the basis of my premise

now to avoid argument, I'm leaving you with my conclusion

prove it wrong via sources. I will not argue the basis with you.

god, there is so much wrong with it

you believe dinosaurs were buried by a flood, not a meteor?

and if a animal lies in the water, don't you think it decays?

@BeatMe I believe that's what the evidence points to. yes

what evidence?

you made some premises and what now?

@BeatMe in my first two premise I made if very clear that the animals were buried. rotting could have easily happened, but the bones fossilized

why would animals be buried by a flood?

@BeatMe I take over the world by proving evolution and your theory wrong... NO this is just the understandings that I see and what I base my opinions off of

but your understandings are wrong and are not related to any flood

why would animals be buried by a flood

answer me that

@BeatMe I guess you didn't read the bible did you :)

yes i did

don't jump around my questions with irrelevant remarks

@BeatMe it says that the waters of the deep broke open all at once. meaning that massive amounts of sediment were involved in the flood

so thats your evidence?

you take everything you need to make a world that fits to your bible

and ignore everything else

condescension is a form of insult. Just FYI.

@BeatMe I'm not sure if I ignore everything else. I might not understand how it fits into the creation account. but I'm sure with time that will be explained too.

@BeatMe what else have you got?

I want to ask you a question

you believe the scientists about how fossils are formed, where they come from, but ignore them when they say these fossils are millions of years old?

@CiscoIPPhone Who me? OK, shoot.

:P

I was meaning @JonathonByrd :P

@CiscoIPPhone I'm kind of here. :) trying to get work done too tho

thats the thing I blame you

you take everything from the scientists that might fit into your bible, but ignore everything else

there is simply no other way to put it

If all the life was killed at the same time by a flood, then why would there be a clear ordering to the fossils we find? Certain fossils are found in certain layers, and the organisms that most resemble recent life are in the most recent layers.

If there was a flood we would expect all life to be mixed together

@CiscoIPPhone the geological column is not a world wide thing.

it IS in the sense that there are obvious layers all around the world

HOWEVER

the layers are not always in the same order all over the world

some layers are missing, some are added, some are in the wrong order

are there any humans found under dinosaur?

if the layers were formed over millions of years, doesn't it make sense that it would be a global phenomena?

@CiscoIPPhone I haven't studied it enough to be able to discern the possibilities.

@JonathonByrd, you didn't answer my question yet

@JonathonByrd Ok. If you do study it I advise you not to use only creationist sources and be impartial.

@CiscoIPPhone I will. I definitely use all sources however I am partial to my own theory.

:1974401 you're partial to your own theory too. its not a crime

it's not my theory?

and it doesn't make you ignorant either. It's just the theory that makes more sense in your opinion

it's proven by thousands of scientists

@BeatMe and in my opinion all thousand of those scientists have a lot to learn.

the same thousand scientists that made everything around you possible?

you still didn't answer why you accept only those things that fit to your bible, but ignore everything else

@BeatMe haha and you think just because the scientists came up with a solution that it's the right solution?

so dumping chemicals into your body via prescription and shots is the perfect kind of healthy. no wonder we have so many deaths from prescriptions, they're just so perfectly the right answer to a problem.

there's no conspiracy, its just that scientists have a lot to learn before I'll accept their answers

@BeatMe For the same reason that you do.

so you would rather live a few hundred years ago?

but I was not talking about medicine, but I prefer those to no medical help, yes

Regarding the earlier topics here: the geological column is, firstly, pretty good; secondly, we have a very good idea of how things go missing (erosion), get twisted (plate tectonics/uplifting/etc.)--I've never seen or heard of an example of out-of-order that wasn't obviously of this type--and thirdly, different places are, well different so it's not surprise that it's not globally identical.

@RexKerr then you must not understand the theory of the geological column. the suggested sediment layers are supposed to have formed from cosmic dust

thus all layers would/should be consistent

^^

talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof2

I'll read that.

"The most amazing thing about the cosmic dust argument is that it is still being used! It has coasted along on obsolete evidence, and nothing but obsolete evidence, for the last 25 years!! It nicely illustrates how creationists borrow from each other and never do any outside reading."

Oh that's on the moon.

thats the point

yes, but there are also figures how much "dust" comes to earth each year

what in the world are you talking about

so tell me. where did the geological layers come from?

what do you think?

dust thats coming from space?

@BeatMe No I don't

then why do you say that "suggested sediment layers are supposed to have formed from cosmic dust"

@BeatMe But that's the suggested basis behind the geological column theory.

who suggested it?

because I'm mocking the geological column theory

yeah, good job

and you're not understanding wtf I'm talking about. instead you're slandering the fact that it was said

@BeatMe so tell me. where do the layers in the geological column come from?

pressure, erosion, sediments?

erosion, sediments, pressure in that sequence

so the scientists have thought for many years that it was from cosmic dust. now lately, they've changed their mind and said that the dirt from the layers is dirt from our planet. but they really have no idea how it got there?

sounds to me like a flood..

and that scientists are just now figuring that out.

How does a flood create material?

nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html

oh thats great

well, the Bible tells us that all of the waters of the deep broke open. thus causing a lot of sediment to be dislodged.

I don't read your creation websites. so you referencing something in an attempt to discredit what I'm saying is in poor taste.

it only goes to show that you have no actual evidence to say any differently.

no, those keywords "cosmic dust", "geological column" are only used by creationists

that is where you have your knowledge from

@JonathonByrd but there's not a single type of sediment, it's layered and the organisms in the layers have a particular order. How can a flood order organisms with such precision?

and you believe everything because they say so and it fits the bible

@BeatMe I believe what the Bible tells me. and I'm confident that I can stand on what the Bible says and be right.

@BeatMe It might take you guys longer to getting around to the truth, but you'll eventually realize that the Bible has been right all along.

yes, ignorant to everything else

"With rare exception, all the animals in the geological column were alive just prior to the flood. The fossils found deepest within the geological column are simply immobile and inhabit the lowest elevations possible on earth. Organisms that are increasingly mobile, tolerant of change, and intelligent are expected to avoid the rising waters depending on their abilities and succumb to the catastrophe at different times."

oh that hurts ^^

@CiscoIPPhone hydro-logical sorting is one testable observation

@JonathonByrd and has it been tested?

@CiscoIPPhone you can find the tests yourself

e.g. get a load of random animal bones, dump a mass of sediment and water over them and see if they sort?

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html

The hydrologic sorting idea was put forward by Young Earth Creationists to explain stratification as well as fossil distribution in a global flood scenario. Even if there were tides they would not disturb anything greater than the immediate surface. Secondly if such an absurd deep disturbance did occur then the sorting would be based upon density, which is not what has occurred.

"Hydrological sorting" can not explain why jellyfish are found throughout the fossil record starting at the bottom, while whales are exclusively near the top.

Dolphins and ichthyosaurs present nearly identical hydrologic profiles and would be sorted identically. Contrary to this argument, ichthyosaurs are restricted to the Mesozoic layers while dolphins aren't found before the mid-Cenozoic.

@CiscoIPPhone no. you'd actually test without bones. you would just test with different sediments

@JonathonByrd Oh I'm fairly certain sediment would sort, but that's not the problem, it's what is found in the sediment

@BeatMe do you see how your talkorigins is dismissing evidence based upon nothing else but opinion?

you probably don't.. its only us creationists that dismiss your theories.. never the other way around.

no?

@CiscoIPPhone but tell me, why is it that the sediment does sort?

you take this: creationwiki.org/Hydrological_sorting

and think the bones do align too

altough that makes no sense

@BeatMe please excuse @CiscoIPPhone and I while we have a conversation. you are doing nothing productive in this room atm.

@JonathonByrd Because of the difference in weight?

@CiscoIPPhone That would be my assumption. same reason why I can shake spices and watch the larger chunks rise to the top

@JonathonByrd Yes, sediment could sort like that. But the organisms in the sediment couldn't.

Like what BeatMe's link says: "Fossils are not sorted according to hydrodynamic principles. Ammonites, which are buoyant organisms similar to the chambered nautilus, are found only in deep strata"

So a creature that floats, is among the deepest down, how does that make any sense?

I have no idea why jelly fish would show on the bottom vs dinosaurs in the middle and whales and seashells on top

@CiscoIPPhone but make no mistake. These animals have clearly been separated with the layers. have they not?

nobody has seen the effects of a violent global flood. so nobody can even begin to "state" how it would work.

further testing is needed to know for sure.

well hello @Caleb. have you come with the cattle prod?

@JonathonByrd Water cannot identify organisms, that would be required if we wanted to believe a flood did what we see.

@CiscoIPPhone ?

@CiscoIPPhone why would water need to identify the organism?

@JonathonByrd Well how else could it put organisms of identical weight, with identical hydrodynamics at different layers?

isn't it possible that the animals traveled together in packs of some sort, where hit with the same erosion/flood and then spread around? behind buried by the same type of sediment

?

thats a possibility

Geologic strata being the result of erosion has been the commonly accepted scientific view for over two hundred years (that was part of the idea behind uniformitarianism), by the way.

Well, erosion causing sedimentation, etc..

@CiscoIPPhone easily. different packs being hit with different erosions or simply animals fighting to get out of the flood

Fossils include things like shells that can't really move.

@RexKerr Good point.

@RexKerr have you ever seen one move?

Sure, depends on the type of shell. Bivalves can move okay. Things like limpets can't so much.

But none of them can move that effectively in a storm (aside perhaps from burrowing in sand/mud), let alone a global flood.

And anyway, there's also fossil pollen and diatoms and other stuff that can't move. And trees and leaves and etc. etc...and there's the iridium layer at the KT boundary, and so on and so forth.

@RexKerr its a possibility for a few of them to scatter when something like this hits. it's also a possibility for currents to take control of others

I don't think you quite understand the scale of the problem. There are types of pollen, for example, that are found globally at, say, 150 million years. Then different types at, say, 90 million. Different again at 40 million.

The only real options are (1) something much like the standard scientific account, based on the weight of evidence, which is truly enormous, or (2) a miracle not explained by standard physical laws.

@RexKerr I don't think you understand the kind of chaos that a global flood caused by water under ground breaking through the surface would cause. I don't think you could count on many things going to plan at that point.

@RexKerr you're throwing around your millions of years as if it meant something.

@RexKerr it could very possibly be that between those millions of years is less then 20 feet of sediment which could easily be explained in a flood

@JonathonByrd You are the one saying there would be a strict ordering, the opposite of chaos...where water could run over a field and separate every piece of pollen

It's not logical or rational

@JonathonByrd No but I can run back and get it if you like, will it be necessary? ;-)

@CiscoIPPhone I never said strict ordering between animals. But non-life sediments can definitely be more predictable then an animal. that's for sure

try and throw a dog in a pool and then dump a truck of dirt on him and see what happens.

who knows!!!

@Caleb i like the tickle :)

@JonathonByrd But we do see an order.

@CiscoIPPhone make up your mind.

I haven't changed my mind...

@CiscoIPPhone you just told me that there is no order in the animals and now you're telling me that there is order in the animals.

@JonathonByrd When did I say there is no order?

@RexKerr right here out of rexs mouth