danielwoods Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: I have claimed that your responses to my posts display the lack of attention to the details, such that I doubt you read my posts. You have stated you find my responses "long-winded". Either way, whether boring, or too detailed to retain attention at your level, you obviously missed important details. Or I simply disagreed with your conclusions. Quote You begin your post stating: "However, notice this first photo which shows that if millions of years had occurred, we should observe evidence of erosion between layers that are supposed to have been separated by millions of years" I wrote to you, several pages back in time: "The Redwall Limestone....again limestone must be, by definitionmore than 50% shells and corals...is a red cliff area that is 800 feet thick. This layer at its upper edge displays signs of erosion, meaning that back in the distant past, this layer lay open on the ground and was broken, decayed and eroded by wind and water, before the next layer was laid on top of it. This erosion is not a process that happens over a summer, or over a few n months. Wind and water erosion requires time, lots of time. Take a look again back at Bryce and see how little the valley changes due to water and wind erosion from year to year. The Mauv Limestone layer is between 350 to 600 feet thick and shifts in colours from light grays to browns and light reds. There are obvious signs of erosion between the redwall limestone layers above and the mauv limestone layers below." That means there are obvious evidences of erosion. You really need to make yourself better informed, or at least, try to read for comprehension. The site you quote above has either left out important information through ignorance, or they have omitted information purposefully in order to deceive. Let's say for purposes of argument, that your example (these two different limestone layers) have evidence of erosion between them. And I have no reason to doubt that is the case. This fact has no bearing on the fact that the example used in the photo above has no evidence of erosion between them (the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation). Yet, the claim is that there is supposedly 5 million years separating these to layers.
thesometimesaint Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 16 hours ago, danielwoods said: It depends on ones world view. I see evidence for the flood every time I see sedimentary rock. If one says that Noah's flood is simply a metaphor then where does it stop? That the Genesis account is the convoluted telling and retelling of much older stories from Mesopotamia.
bcuzbcuz Posted July 26, 2016 Author Posted July 26, 2016 3 hours ago, danielwoods said: Or I simply disagreed with your conclusions. Let's say for purposes of argument, that your example (these two different limestone layers) have evidence of erosion between them. And I have no reason to doubt that is the case. This fact has no bearing on the fact that the example used in the photo above has no evidence of erosion between them (the Coconino Sandstone and Hermit Formation). Yet, the claim is that there is supposedly 5 million years separating these to layers. Repeatedly the creationist sites you quote engage themselves in finding what they imagine as discrepancies in research. While research has shown clear and easily discernable evidence of erosion between certain layers of the Grand Canyon, these sites get ecstatic that the evidence is not equally clear in some other layers. What actually happened during the Coconino and Hermit layers is at this time unknown. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finding a gap in an idea does not prove the idea wrong. If you want to insist that the Grand Canyon was formed during and following Noah's flood, you will need to find evidence that supports the idea that a mile deep canyon can be created in less than a year. So far you are far from your goal.
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said: Repeatedly the creationist sites you quote engage themselves in finding what they imagine as discrepancies in research. While research has shown clear and easily discernable evidence of erosion between certain layers of the Grand Canyon, these sites get ecstatic that the evidence is not equally clear in some other layers. What actually happened during the Coconino and Hermit layers is at this time unknown. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Finding a gap in an idea does not prove the idea wrong. If you want to insist that the Grand Canyon was formed during and following Noah's flood, you will need to find evidence that supports the idea that a mile deep canyon can be created in less than a year. So far you are far from your goal. The lack of evidence of erosion isn't evidence of absence rather is it evidence that no erosion occurred. The same principle can be applied to your side. If you want to insist that the Grand Canyon was formed over 6 or 16 million years then you will need to find evidence that supports the idea that a river even existed that long let alone can cut a canyon of that magnatude in over 6 million years.
bcuzbcuz Posted July 26, 2016 Author Posted July 26, 2016 46 minutes ago, danielwoods said: The lack of evidence of erosion isn't evidence of absence rather is it evidence that no erosion occurred. The same principle can be applied to your side. If you want to insist that the Grand Canyon was formed over 6 or 16 million years then you will need to find evidence that supports the idea that a river even existed that long let alone can cut a canyon of that magnatude in over 6 million years. Given the parameter dates you state I can only guess that you've googled the age of the Grand Canyon and you already know that various groups of geologists argue whether the Grand Canyon was formed by earlier forces than the Colorado River that formed some 4,5 million to 6 million years ago. It makes no difference to me. I've walked, then donkey rided down the canyon wall. I've touched the rocks and know from my studies of geology that such rocks take hundreds of thousands of years to be eroded. Whether the rocks have been fully eroded in 6 million years or 16 million years is something I'll leave for those more competent to answer. I do know, with absolute certainty, that the Grand Canyon was not formed 4,500 years ago (or any date you want to attach to Noah's flood).
danielwoods Posted July 26, 2016 Posted July 26, 2016 2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: I do know, with absolute certainty, that the Grand Canyon was not formed 4,500 years ago (or any date you want to attach to Noah's flood). Absolute certainty about things no one has ever seen, ever, indicates faith, not fact. Just so you know, I'm ok with any number, I'll accept whatever is true. Because you see there isn't a date that would be a problem for my worldview. And I've not seen any evidence yet that the Earth is older than 10k years. But if it's 4.6 billion no big deal.
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 15 hours ago, danielwoods said: Absolute certainty about things no one has ever seen, ever, indicates faith, not fact. Just so you know, I'm ok with any number, I'll accept whatever is true. Because you see there isn't a date that would be a problem for my worldview. And I've not seen any evidence yet that the Earth is older than 10k years. But if it's 4.6 billion no big deal. Then open your eyes.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Then open your eyes. I didn't find a single Hebrew scholar that believes the Biblical flood was regional. Can you help me? "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know" - Oxford Hebrew scholar, Professor James Barr I also wonder, how did Noah's ark float if the flood was regional? 16 hours ago, danielwoods said: Absolute certainty about things no one has ever seen, ever, indicates faith, not fact. . We can reasonably assume that dinosaurs lived because we have the fossils, have you seen a living dinosaur? Scientists can calculate the distance of planets by a method known as triangulation, Scientists don't have to directly measure the distance with a giant ruler.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I haven't read this entire thread so I apologize if this has been covered, but it seems to me like Ken Ham and young earthers would find a lot of sympathy for their views in our church. D&C 77 alone seems to reinforce multiple times that the temporal earth is only 6000 year old. And if the interpretation is stretched a little to mean that the time from Adam being cast out of the garden to now is 6000 years (not accounting for lengthy periods/days of creation) that would still mean humans are only a 6000 year old species. It's in the scriptures, but does anyone really believe that kind of young earth timeline?
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 47 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I didn't find a single Hebrew scholar that believes the Biblical flood was regional. Can you help me? SEE http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/genesis-flood
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I haven't read this entire thread so I apologize if this has been covered, but it seems to me like Ken Ham and young earthers would find a lot of sympathy for their views in our church. D&C 77 alone seems to reinforce multiple times that the temporal earth is only 6000 year old. And if the interpretation is stretched a little to mean that the time from Adam being cast out of the garden to now is 6000 years (not accounting for lengthy periods/days of creation) that would still mean humans are only a 6000 year old species. It's in the scriptures, but does anyone really believe that kind of young earth timeline? We don't know what JS meant by "Temporal Age of the Earth", and he seemed to have believed the earth was 2.5 Billion years old. But how he calculated that is as erroneous as Archbishop Ussher's . SEE https://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/27/2555000000/
danielwoods Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: We can reasonably assume that dinosaurs lived because we have the fossils, have you seen a living dinosaur? Scientists can calculate the distance of planets by a method known as triangulation, Scientists don't have to directly measure the distance with a giant ruler. Knowing dinosaurs existed isn't disputed at least by me. Knowing when they existed is a completely different question entirely. Science rests on observation and calibration. Measuring the distance between stars or the distance between layers in the geologic column require no extrapolation because those measurements can be repeated by others. However, once a claim that those measurements equal time like millions of years, then we are no longer looking at observed science, but extrapolatation which is based on ones worldview or faith. Edited July 27, 2016 by danielwoods
thesometimesaint Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) Light takes time to travel(186,000 miles per second). IE: It takes about 8 minutes for light to travel from our sun to earth. About 5.3 hours to travel from Pluto to earth. Further distances require longer times. Edited July 27, 2016 by thesometimesaint
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/genesis-flood that is very nice, but can you please answer my question? The author of that article is a pastor, not a Hebrew scholar. Edited July 28, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 14 hours ago, danielwoods said: Knowing dinosaurs existed isn't disputed at least by me. Knowing when they existed is a completely different question entirely. Ken Ham places dinosaurs on the ark. Do you agree with him? 1
danielwoods Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, Calm said: Ken Ham places dinosaurs on the ark. Do you agree with him? Yes. I think that there is a lot of evidence that man has interacted with dinosaurs.
bcuzbcuz Posted July 28, 2016 Author Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) On 26 July 2016 at 4:43 PM, danielwoods said: Yes. I think that there is a lot of evidence that man has interacted with dinosaurs. Wow! Great question, Calm. If I had thought to ask that question some 10 posts back I could have saved myself a lot (A LOT) of trouble. Anyone who thinks that dinosaurs and humans co-existed on the planet have disconnected reason and logic a long way back. It's a waste of time trying to have a reasonable discussion. Well, that's wasted time I'll never get back. My apology goes out to my wife. You were right. I was wasting my time. Edited July 28, 2016 by bcuzbcuz Writing error
Calm Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, danielwoods said: Yes. I think that there is a lot of evidence that man has interacted with dinosaurs. When were they wiped out in your view and why?
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 8 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: that is very nice, but can you please answer my question? The author of that article is a pastor, not a Hebrew scholar. Hugh Nibley was a Hebrew scholar. He believed the Flood was a massive albeit regional flood. The stories of the garden of Eden and the Flood have always furnished unbelievers with their best ammunition against believers, because they are the easiest to visualize, popularize, and satirize of any Bible accounts. Everyone has seen a garden and been caught in a pouring rain. It requires no effort of imagination for a six-year-old to cover concise and straightforward Sunday-school recitals into the vivid images that will stay with him the rest of his life. These stories retain the form of the nursery tales they assume in the imaginations of small children, to be defended by grownups who refuse to distinguish between childlike faith and thinking as a child when it is time to “put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11) – Hugh Nibley, “Before Adam”, talk given to BYU students in 1980,
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 4 hours ago, danielwoods said: Yes. I think that there is a lot of evidence that man has interacted with dinosaurs. No there is not. BTW The Flintstones isn't a documentary.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 58 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Hugh Nibley was a Hebrew scholar. He believed the Flood was a massive albeit regional flood. that is a much better answer, but it is not good enough. 1. Was Hugh Nibley a professor of Hebrew or the Old Testament at any world-class university? 2. Did Hugh Nibley make significant contributions to the field of biblical theology? 3. Did Hugh Nibley specialize in the Old Testament? Just compare his credentials to Professor James Barr
ksfisher Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 5 hours ago, danielwoods said: Yes. I think that there is a lot of evidence that man has interacted with dinosaurs. Could you share some of that evidence with us? It would be interesting to read.
thesometimesaint Posted July 28, 2016 Posted July 28, 2016 2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: that is a much better answer, but it is not good enough. 1. Was Hugh Nibley a professor of Hebrew or the Old Testament at any world-class university? 2. Did Hugh Nibley make significant contributions to the field of biblical theology? 3. Did Hugh Nibley specialize in the Old Testament? Just compare his credentials to Professor James Barr Ad Hominem attacks don't become you.
danielwoods Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 11 hours ago, Calm said: When were they wiped out in your view and why? The dinosaurs we often refer to with a question like this are the largest ones. I believe it's most likely that man killed them as they settled in different continents after the flood. The reason being the clear incompatibly of living with or near such large animals that would threaten their lives. So it would be either us or them as our territory expanded. I believe that the many legends of killing dragons has its roots in such ancient interactions.
Calm Posted July 29, 2016 Posted July 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, danielwoods said: The dinosaurs we often refer to with a question like this are the largest ones. I believe it's most likely that man killed them as they settled in different continents after the flood. The reason being the clear incompatibly of living with or near such large animals that would threaten their lives. So it would be either us or them as our territory expanded. I believe that the many legends of killing dragons has its roots in such ancient interactions. And the smaller, probably much numerous dinosaurs?
Recommended Posts