• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nothing made everything....

RAMOSS said:
That is a very simple answer. There are time there is less ice cap, and the sea level rises. There also is the rise and fall of teutonic plates. All you need is a lot longer time frame than you think exists, and this is one of the pieces of evidence for long time frames. This is particularly true since the lower fossil bed , from an independent method of age, is a lot older than the upper layers. The layers of volcanic ash that has parts that can be dated via radiometic data confirm that. It is a convergence of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines that independently confirm each other.
Click to expand...

This is from the US National Park Service:

The Kaibab Limestone, the uppermost layer of rock at Grand Canyon, was formed at the bottom of the ocean. Yet today, at the top of the Colorado Plateau, the Kaibab Limestone is found at elevations up to 9,000 feet.

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm


One question that is not answered is how the Coconino Sandstone first formed on dry land (if it did form on dry land) and then the Kaibab Limestone was laid down right on top of the sandstone at the bottom of the ocean. Finally, today we find the Kaibab topping out at 9,000 feet above sea level. Assumptions of major thousands of feet jack-in-the-box jerking up and down land movements is just speculation and, quite frankly, a little hard to believe.
 
Omega Man said:
I'm still trying to figure out how precisely highly functioning cultures in places such as Egypt and China continued on functioning and thriving in the face of that biblical "global" flood. Why did they continue on living, while the rest of the world "perished".


OM
Click to expand...

Nimrod built Babylon 4,000 years ago. That is just about how old ancient Chinese civilizations have been discovered to have been.
 
zyzygy said:
Limestone cannot form rapidly. That is why nobody has ever seen it form rapidly. If you have a theory about rapid limestone deposits then feel free to present it. Saying that it may have happened doesn't cut the mustard. Do you know what limestone is composed of?
Click to expand...

These researchers were shocked at how quickly limestone formed from their experimental process:

Scientists prove Limestone Can Form Quickly https://www.icr.org/article/scientists-prove-limestone-can-form-quickly

How ironic that researchers seeking a way to capture excess CO2 at a nuclear plant accidentally stumbled upon the proof that limestone can be formed very quickly.

Sigurdur Gislason of the University of Iceland explains, "Before the injection started in CarbFix, the consensus within the [secular] scientific community was that it would take decades to thousands of years for the injected CO2 to mineralize. Then we found out that it was already mineralised after 400 days."
 
marke said:
This is from the US National Park Service:

The Kaibab Limestone, the uppermost layer of rock at Grand Canyon, was formed at the bottom of the ocean. Yet today, at the top of the Colorado Plateau, the Kaibab Limestone is found at elevations up to 9,000 feet.

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm


One question that is not answered is how the Coconino Sandstone first formed on dry land (if it did form on dry land) and then the Kaibab Limestone was laid down right on top of the sandstone at the bottom of the ocean. Finally, today we find the Kaibab topping out at 9,000 feet above sea level. Assumptions of major thousands of feet jack-in-the-box jerking up and down land movements is just speculation and, quite frankly, a little hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Plate teutonics.. which can be measured and have been,
 
Omega Man said:
I'm still trying to figure out how precisely highly functioning cultures in places such as Egypt and China continued on functioning and thriving in the face of that biblical "global" flood. Why did they continue on living, while the rest of the world "perished".


OM
Click to expand...

China actually has an ancient flood myth, but its very different than the ones found in Sumeria and in the bible. The Chinese myth tells that the world isn't inundated with water, rather the heroes channel the flood through various means with the help of the gods, but very few people die from drowning since they move to the mountains.

zyzygy said:
There are about one and a half million species of animals and insects. Two of every kind (the Bible says that there were seven of certain species but we'll ignore that) so three million examples. A very big Ark was needed and Noah and his family had their hands full at feeding time, not to mention where the food was stored. Shovelling out the dung would have been time-consuming too. What an idiotic story.
Click to expand...

ZmFR8q5.gif
 
marke said:
The evidence that the Coconino Sandstone was formed under water is overwhelming.

https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ndstone-most-powerful-argument-against-flood/
Click to expand...

Because creationists saw flaws with the windblown sand story in light of the Bible, they chose to study this formation more carefully. This research has revealed many problems with often-made claims. No evidence can “discredit the biblical story of the Flood of Noah,” as Strahler claimed. Upon further investigation, the Coconino Sandstone actually provides tremendous supporting evidence for the Flood and confirms the unquestionable truth of God’s Word!:lamo:lamo:lamo
A crackpot site. Thanks for the laugh.
 
marke said:
Nimrod built Babylon 4,000 years ago. That is just about how old ancient Chinese civilizations have been discovered to have been.
Click to expand...

The biblical “Nimrod” was fictional (as was the mythical “Tower of Babel”; based upon the Sumerian city of Eridug, later translated into Greek as “Babylon”), and was borrowed largely from pre-existing neo-Sumerian legends; most notably the tale of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (“Nimrod” was borrowed from, and based upon Enmerkar). “The Tower of Babel” was obviously a myth, and by extension, “The Flood” narrative, as both tales depend upon each other to frame the narrative that there was only “one language” in the whole world. Problem is, the Fertile Crescent wasn’t the whole world. Taking the biblical timeline into account, not only were pyramids were being built at the same time, but ruling dynasties were continuing UNINTERRUPTED. The Fifth Dynasty ruled during the biblical timeline for “the flood”, and yet continued onwards. The Sixth Dynasty started immediately afterwards (kind of hard to do if there is only “one family” in the whole world). The Akkadian empire started within a decade of when the biblical timeline suggests the whole world was killed off. Miraculously, the “flood” didn’t kill off Sargon. Same with the Indus Valley civilization; they continued thriving for another 900 years or so afterwards. The Mesopotamians and the Egyptians, another 1900 years. Why is it these cultures continued thriving, speaking their own languages already? Simple… because the Genesis tales were nothing more than regional mythology; oral tales and traditions, eventually redacted and reduced to writing. They aren’t history books, any more than any other myths from ancient cultures.


OM
 
marke said:
Maybe. So 8,000 feet of ocean deposits are formed under water before the Colorado van even begin cutting the top of the formation nearly mile above its flowing waters. And now we want to add hundreds more feet deep sediments above that to be widely eroded away before the narrow canyon begins being cut by the river which is flowing a smile below the top of the canyon walls.

Color me confused as to how anyone could have dreamed up this speculative explanation for the mystery of the Grand Canyon
Click to expand...

It took a few generations of geologist to get to the idea of just how old the earth is. That deep time in billions of years thing was so shocking the first few just could not grasp it.

Sometime science advances one fumeral at a time.
 
marke said:
Like a buzzsaw blade at a lumber mill the land just kept rising while the river didn't?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Although, like the buzzsaw, the river is a little higher in the entrance to the canyon as the gradient needed to make the river run faster and thus cut downwards needs to be there for it to work like the saw will bend back a little with the force of the wood on it.

You have descibed a good metaphor for it.
 
marke said:
The secularist speculator: I am sure limestone cannot form except very slowly in shallow seas.

The skeptic: How do you know that for sure?

The speculator: Because nobody has seen it form rapidly, even under catastrophic conditions which we cannot imagine ever took place on earth in ancient history.
Click to expand...

Lime stone is the built up layers of shells of tiny sea creatures. If it was formed more recently than 600 million years there will be lots of fossils in it. That is because there was an explosion of diversity and biger, multicellular, forms appeared then.

If there had been a vast catastrophic flood it would have left a vast world wide deposit of debris all over the ocean floor. This would have consisted of the soil washed away from most of the surface of the world. Lots of rocks, lots of trees, some smashed animals etc. Not millions of years worth of coral growth.

A pub near here in England has a stone door step made of a lime stone formed from razor clam shells. They are a little larger than todays but you can see utterly obviously that for many generations razor clams grew on top of the dead previous generations of them. Same sort of thing.
 
marke said:
This is from the US National Park Service:

The Kaibab Limestone, the uppermost layer of rock at Grand Canyon, was formed at the bottom of the ocean. Yet today, at the top of the Colorado Plateau, the Kaibab Limestone is found at elevations up to 9,000 feet.

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm


One question that is not answered is how the Coconino Sandstone first formed on dry land (if it did form on dry land) and then the Kaibab Limestone was laid down right on top of the sandstone at the bottom of the ocean. Finally, today we find the Kaibab topping out at 9,000 feet above sea level. Assumptions of major thousands of feet jack-in-the-box jerking up and down land movements is just speculation and, quite frankly, a little hard to believe.
Click to expand...

1, The sand stone was not formed on dry land, unless it is the unusual sort which is formed as a sand sea in a desert. Mostly though sand stone is formed in seas or lakes.

2, The lime stone has to have been formed in a sea like it is being formed today.

3, This means that there must have been a lot of time involved. Like it or not.
 
marke said:
These researchers were shocked at how quickly limestone formed from their experimental process:

Scientists prove Limestone Can Form Quickly https://www.icr.org/article/scientists-prove-limestone-can-form-quickly

How ironic that researchers seeking a way to capture excess CO2 at a nuclear plant accidentally stumbled upon the proof that limestone can be formed very quickly.

Sigurdur Gislason of the University of Iceland explains, "Before the injection started in CarbFix, the consensus within the [secular] scientific community was that it would take decades to thousands of years for the injected CO2 to mineralize. Then we found out that it was already mineralised after 400 days."
Click to expand...

This is a better, not lying, version of what is being done;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43789527

I got it from the cite sources on the lying christian (not)science site. There is no lime stone no sea creatures, no shells, no fossils.

Underground, the CO2 solution comes into contact with basalt and turns into white, chalky calcites that fill the pores of the rock
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Plate teutonics.. which can be measured and have been,
Click to expand...

The movement of tectonic plates is a fact. Jack in the box plate movements involving alternating successions of up and down movement measuring more than a vertical mile in one direction followed by 2 miles vertical movement in the other is not observed science, it is pure speculation based upon wild stretches of imaginative interpretations of known details about plate movement.
 
marke said:
The movement of tectonic plates is a fact. Jack in the box plate movements involving alternating successions of up and down movement measuring more than a vertical mile in one direction followed by 2 miles vertical movement in the other is not observed science, it is pure speculation based upon wild stretches of imaginative interpretations of known details about plate movement.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Now what about those millions of animals on the Ark?
 
marke said:
The movement of tectonic plates is a fact. Jack in the box plate movements involving alternating successions of up and down movement measuring more than a vertical mile in one direction followed by 2 miles vertical movement in the other is not observed science, it is pure speculation based upon wild stretches of imaginative interpretations of known details about plate movement.
Click to expand...

However, changes up up to several inches a year have been noted, in modern times in the Himalayan. The fact of the amount of that movement and the dating of the rocks at the top is entirely consistent with an old earth, and convergent evidence from multiple disciplines indication that the belief in a young earth is false.

This also demonstrates that there are two types of people. Those who can extrapolate data.
 
RAMOSS said:
However, changes up up to several inches a year have been noted, in modern times in the Himalayan. The fact of the amount of that movement and the dating of the rocks at the top is entirely consistent with an old earth, and convergent evidence from multiple disciplines indication that the belief in a young earth is false.

This also demonstrates that there are two types of people. Those who can extrapolate data.
Click to expand...

Several inches a year for millions of years adds up to a lot but we are talking to somebody who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old. There is not a shred of proof for that. The Earth is demonstrably far older.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It took a few generations of geologist to get to the idea of just how old the earth is. That deep time in billions of years thing was so shocking the first few just could not grasp it.

Sometime science advances one fumeral at a time.
Click to expand...

No matter how convinced scientists are that the billions of years estimates of earlier researchers is accurate, it is not.
 
marke said:
No matter how convinced scientists are that the billions of years estimates of earlier researchers is accurate, it is not.
Click to expand...

So fill us all in with your facts. I would like to see the proof of what you are saying please.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Yes.

Although, like the buzzsaw, the river is a little higher in the entrance to the canyon as the gradient needed to make the river run faster and thus cut downwards needs to be there for it to work like the saw will bend back a little with the force of the wood on it.

You have descibed a good metaphor for it.
Click to expand...

In that case, the whole ridiculous notion that the Colorado River started cutting the top of the canyon when the elevation of the canyon's upper surface was 5,000 or 6,000 feet lower than it is today is unscientific fictional nonsense.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Lime stone is the built up layers of shells of tiny sea creatures. If it was formed more recently than 600 million years there will be lots of fossils in it. That is because there was an explosion of diversity and biger, multicellular, forms appeared then.

If there had been a vast catastrophic flood it would have left a vast world wide deposit of debris all over the ocean floor. This would have consisted of the soil washed away from most of the surface of the world. Lots of rocks, lots of trees, some smashed animals etc. Not millions of years worth of coral growth.

A pub near here in England has a stone door step made of a lime stone formed from razor clam shells. They are a little larger than todays but you can see utterly obviously that for many generations razor clams grew on top of the dead previous generations of them. Same sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Erroneous simplistic views of limestone formation do not qualify as true and accurate science.
 
Tim the plumber said:
1, The sand stone was not formed on dry land, unless it is the unusual sort which is formed as a sand sea in a desert. Mostly though sand stone is formed in seas or lakes.

2, The lime stone has to have been formed in a sea like it is being formed today.

3, This means that there must have been a lot of time involved. Like it or not.
Click to expand...

Not lot's of time, my friend. Lot's of water.
 
RAMOSS said:
However, changes up up to several inches a year have been noted, in modern times in the Himalayan. The fact of the amount of that movement and the dating of the rocks at the top is entirely consistent with an old earth, and convergent evidence from multiple disciplines indication that the belief in a young earth is false.

This also demonstrates that there are two types of people. Those who can extrapolate data.
Click to expand...

If sedimentary rock at the top of the Himalayas was formed under ocean water then where were sedimentary rocks lower in the Himalayas formed. under the same ocean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom