Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
:upsidedown: Here ya go- you begged- I provide... (although why you didn't just start one yourself is beyond me LOL)

OK- since we're here... Again I ask- what scientific non-religious based evidence do you have for a literal 7 day creation (and, this includes the creation part as well as the literal 7 day part.) :) Looking forward to reading what you have to say! :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Hi MamaBear, I recall we did a bit of science versus genesis discussion, while discussing the Age of the Earth. The Genesis 7-day literal discussion started about here, with my post: http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=12607&highlight=genesis&page=4

Have fun guys, Herne
Thanks for the link. I started this thread though because Greg had *begged* someone to start a new thread somewhere I think it was in my Vatican thread so he could provide his sources for non-religious based 7 day literal creation- hoping he wanders in- especially since he's claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the issue. I'm just doing what he asked- starting another thread. I'm hoping it's a case of him not having seen this- because he's claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the science- when I've asked numerous times for his sources and have had no response to the query.... (confused)
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
Thanks for the link. I started this thread though because Greg had *begged* someone to start a new thread somewhere I think it was in my Vatican thread so he could provide his sources for non-religious based 7 day literal creation- hoping he wanders in- especially since he's claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the issue. I'm just doing what he asked- starting another thread. I'm hoping it's a case of him not having seen this- because he's claiming that I'm refusing to discuss the science- when I've asked numerous times for his sources and have had no response to the query.... (confused)
hey man look.. I've been busy defending myself against other people making claims for me in other threads.. I didn't see this one as again, I've been busy.

however, if I had known that you started this, making false claims in my behalf I would have been here to defend myself too.

I DID beg for you to start this thread.

I don't believe I ever claimed, or even assumed that you didn't want to discuss this issue with me. I may have said something along the lines of that but it was NOT an attempt to accuse you of such things. some people have come on and just made absolutely rediculous claims on my behalf and completely avoided true scientific discussion. although I will not mention names for obvious reasons, I will say that I do not believe you are one of them.

now, i'll try to keep my writing clean.. meaning I will make an attempt to be as Non-sarcastic as possible. I really see no problem with you guys asking these questions and I dont want to look like some guy completely solid in his beliefs.

I'm going to reread what this thread is supposed to be discussing and start in another post..
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
unfortunately I can't provide you with non-faith based evidence regarding creation.
I can however provide you with non-religious literature based evidence regarding creation. (inside of 7 days)

this can get a little confusing at times..

first, there is evidence for a worldwide flood. wether it was the one spoken about in the bible is not the issue.

when creationists examine the grand canyon (any canyon really) we find evidences for a great flood. some can say that it must have been a worldwide flood, because of the amount of water that would have been involved.

creationists examine strata, and find evidence for it being laid very quickly. which can of course be a result of a great flood, where alot of water was involved.

just went to my favourites and clicked on the wikipedia link someone sent me entitled "flood geology"

anyways, copied and pasted this as it deals with exactly what I'm talking about in another thread on perspective and the way different people see different evidences.

"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence"

I've made some words bold, as they point out just exactly what I mean by perspective.

"Other creationists accept the existence of the geological column and believe that it indicates a sequence of events that might have occurred during the global flood."

(I cut out some stuff, it was just references to scientists as examples.. you can read this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology if you're interested.. just trying to keep this short as possible.)

"They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's lifeforms by sediments in the short period of the flood. Sometimes, creationists will claim that fossilization can only take place when the matter is buried quickly so that the matter does not decompose

Flood geologists have proposed numerous hypothesis to reconcile the sequence of fossils evident in the fossil column with the literal account of Noah's flood in the Bible. Whitcomb and Morris proposed three possible factors. One is hydrological, wherein the relative buoyancies of the remains based on the organisms' shapes and densities determined the sequence in which their remains settled to the bottom of the flood waters. The second factor they proposed was ecological, suggesting organisms living at the ocean bottom succumbed first in the flood and those living at the highest altitudes last. The third factor was anatomical and behavioral, the ordered sequence in the fossil column resulting from the very different responses to the rising waters between different kinds of organisms due to their diverse mobilities and original habitats.[28] In a scenario put forth by Morris, the remains of marine life were the first to settle to the bottom, followed by the slower moving lowland reptiles, and culminating with mankind whose superior intelligence and ability to flee enabled them to reach higher elevations before they were overcome by the flood waters."

this is a good example of what I see as evidence for a worldwide flood, and the placement of species inside the fossil record. I also consider this to be sufficient contrary evidence to the entire theory of millions of years, dismissing every piece of evidence an evolutionist can find concering the fossil record.

the way I see it, there is more then enough evidence to form a theory.
just as an evolutionist believes there is more then enough evidence to form an evolutionary theory.
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
ontop of that there is much evidence debunking the belief of millions of years for fossils and the earth. but im trying to keep on topic, as you asked for supporting evidence right?

there is also evidence debunking the idea of dinosaurs being entirely extinct, and also debunking the idea of man and dino living together.

there are many explanations with evidence supporting them as far as these things go. they also have evidence against them, just like evolution :rolleyes:

I think the important thing here is to stick to finding evidences for both theories, rather than trying to dismiss theories. because nothing can be proven right or wrong, on either side of the theory.

I also think we need to stay away from claims like "creationism has no credible evidences"

and try to stick to finding evidences for your own adopted theory.

there are many people in between beliefs and that their choice.. I can't force my belief upon anyone just like they can't force theirs upon me.

however, when asked my opinion I make no attempt to be unopinionated..

if that makes sense;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
ontop of that there is much evidence debunking the belief of millions of years for fossils and the earth. but im trying to keep on topic, as you asked for supporting evidence right?

there is also evidence debunking the idea of dinosaurs being entirely extinct, and also debunking the idea of man and dino living together.

there are many explanations with evidence supporting them as far as these things go. they also have evidence against them, just like evolution :rolleyes:

I think the important thing here is to stick to finding evidences for both theories, rather than trying to dismiss theories. because nothing can be proven right or wrong, on either side of the theory.

I also think we need to stay away from claims like "creationism has no credible evidences"

and try to stick to finding evidences for your own adopted theory.

there are many people in between beliefs and that their choice.. I can't force my belief upon anyone just like they can't force theirs upon me.

however, when asked my opinion I make no attempt to be unopinionated..

if that makes sense;)
You refer to "flood geologists"

What is a "flood geologist"?

If there are "flood geologists" who have actual training in geology
ie, say, even a BSc let alone Masters and PhD, who have published peer reviewed work, etc then what they say can be looked at seriously.

If by "flood geologists" you mean people who started out with the belief that there was a great flood, then set out to think of theories that support that belief, then what they say is not worthy of serious attention.

If one of these fellows could actually talk knowledgeably, could walk in and pass tests at a college in USA or Russia, say, because they actually knew stratigraphy and could explain how a glacial moraine forms and could identify
structures, rock types etc, well, then he may have something going.

If you can find ONE person who has a degree and actually is a geologist, and who thinks he has evidence for a world wide flood I will be very impressed.

You couldnt hide such evidence from all the geologists in the world. Some of them hardly know the bible exists. But they do know how to look at what they are looking at, and interpret it. If there is flood evidence, they'd find it.

So who has published on this? Any NON creationist? Anyone who is a geologist?
Just who might this person be? I think all you have is a bunch of creationists who learned just enough jargon to sound like they know what they are talking about but who would get smoked out, very fast, as frauds if they were in the company of actual scientists.
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
You refer to "flood geologists"

What is a "flood geologist"?

If there are "flood geologists" who have actual training in geology
ie, say, even a BSc let along Masters and PhD, who have published peer reviewed work, etc then what they say can be looked at seriously.

If by "flood geologists" you mean people who started out with the belief that there was a great flood, then set out to think of theories that support that belief, then I doubt I would pay a lot of attention.

If one of these fellows coula actually talk knowledgeably, could walk in and pass tests at a college in USA or Russia, say, because they actually knew stratigraphy and could explain how a glacial moraine forms and could identify
structures, rock types etc, well, then he may have something going.

If you can find ONE person who has a degree and actually is a geologist, and who thinks he has evidence for a wold wide flood I will be very impressed.

Just who might this person be? I think all you have is a bunch of creationists who learned just enough jargon to sound like they know what they are talking about but who would get smoked out, very fast, as frauds if they were in the company of actual scientists.
I think I meant to say flood geology... but you must have quoted the wrong post so I cant be sure..

knows just enough jargon ehh? that sounds like me.. but you haven't been able to "smoke" me out over a period of a week..

as an actual scientist.. someone who is so deeply interested in zoology, geology and biology like yourself must be ashamed. you haven't proven me wrong once.

but.. nothing can be proven.. so I guess in a sense if what you meant by "smoked out" was that an actual scientist could making a laughing stock out of a person like me then sure. im sure a couple of people have had quite the chuckle.. Im not discouraged at all by that.. for one reason.. you haven't been able to prove yourself right or me wrong..

and aslong as thats the case then I'll just keep supporting everyones "evidence" of me being a "fundamentalist nutjob"

LOL.:thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
... OK- so that gives possible support to the flood story. However- that same reasoning can be applied to repercussions of a planet wide comet impact or this Nibiru idea (shaking up the planet and strata settling quickly due to a massive impact phenomenon- think planet sized bumper cars) and doesn't say anything as far as creation. The flood story is not exclusive to Christianity- nor is it related to creation- having occurred much later.

unfortunately I can't provide you with non-faith based evidence regarding creation.
I can however provide you with non-religious literature based evidence regarding creation. (inside of 7 days)

this can get a little confusing at times..

first, there is evidence for a worldwide flood. wether it was the one spoken about in the bible is not the issue.

when creationists examine the grand canyon (any canyon really) we find evidences for a great flood. some can say that it must have been a worldwide flood, because of the amount of water that would have been involved.

creationists examine strata, and find evidence for it being laid very quickly. which can of course be a result of a great flood, where alot of water was involved.

just went to my favourites and clicked on the wikipedia link someone sent me entitled "flood geology"

anyways, copied and pasted this as it deals with exactly what I'm talking about in another thread on perspective and the way different people see different evidences.

"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence"

I've made some words bold, as they point out just exactly what I mean by perspective.

"Other creationists accept the existence of the geological column and believe that it indicates a sequence of events that might have occurred during the global flood."

(I cut out some stuff, it was just references to scientists as examples.. you can read this article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology if you're interested.. just trying to keep this short as possible.)

"They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's lifeforms by sediments in the short period of the flood. Sometimes, creationists will claim that fossilization can only take place when the matter is buried quickly so that the matter does not decompose

Flood geologists have proposed numerous hypothesis to reconcile the sequence of fossils evident in the fossil column with the literal account of Noah's flood in the Bible. Whitcomb and Morris proposed three possible factors. One is hydrological, wherein the relative buoyancies of the remains based on the organisms' shapes and densities determined the sequence in which their remains settled to the bottom of the flood waters. The second factor they proposed was ecological, suggesting organisms living at the ocean bottom succumbed first in the flood and those living at the highest altitudes last. The third factor was anatomical and behavioral, the ordered sequence in the fossil column resulting from the very different responses to the rising waters between different kinds of organisms due to their diverse mobilities and original habitats.[28] In a scenario put forth by Morris, the remains of marine life were the first to settle to the bottom, followed by the slower moving lowland reptiles, and culminating with mankind whose superior intelligence and ability to flee enabled them to reach higher elevations before they were overcome by the flood waters."

this is a good example of what I see as evidence for a worldwide flood, and the placement of species inside the fossil record. I also consider this to be sufficient contrary evidence to the entire theory of millions of years, dismissing every piece of evidence an evolutionist can find concering the fossil record.

the way I see it, there is more then enough evidence to form a theory.
just as an evolutionist believes there is more then enough evidence to form an evolutionary theory.
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
... OK- so that gives possible support to the flood story. However- that same reasoning can be applied to repercussions of a planet wide comet impact or this Nibiru idea (shaking up the planet and strata settling quickly due to a massive impact phenomenon- think planet sized bumper cars) and doesn't say anything as far as creation. The flood story is not exclusive to Christianity- nor is it related to creation- having occurred much later.
the flood theory, what I posted about it.. questions whether the data that evolutionists have about the fossil record should be taken as evidence supporting evolution.

I agree. the same reasoning can be applied to any theory of how we got here. and it quite frequently is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
I think I meant to say flood geology... but you must have quoted the wrong post so I cant be sure..

knows just enough jargon ehh? that sounds like me.. but you haven't been able to "smoke" me out over a period of a week..

as an actual scientist.. someone who is so deeply interested in zoology, geology and biology like yourself must be ashamed. you haven't proven me wrong once.

but.. nothing can be proven.. so I guess in a sense if what you meant by "smoked out" was that an actual scientist could making a laughing stock out of a person like me then sure. im sure a couple of people have had quite the chuckle.. Im not discouraged at all by that.. for one reason.. you haven't been able to prove yourself right or me wrong..

and aslong as thats the case then I'll just keep supporting everyones "evidence" of me being a "fundamentalist nutjob"

LOL.:thumb:

This what you said.

"Flood geologists have proposed numerous hypothesis to reconcile the sequence of fossils evident in the fossil column with the literal account of Noah's flood in the Bible..."

So........ what is a flood geologist, and would you please name some of them so i can check their credentials.

Prove you wrong... no... not if you want to say that there are still unicorns frolicking about. Nothing could be proven to you. You are immune.

As far as smoking you out, well, it was no time at all before you showed your only "education" is from creationist sources, that you accept any "evidence" that agrees with what you already believe, that No amount of evidence would ever change your mind now that it is made up.

You couldnt pass any test in any freshman science class.

You most certainly would make a fool of yourself if you tried to debate in front of an audience with someone who actually did know geology, which you most clearly do not.

We could ask you to define a few terms, show you some photographs and ask you to say what was a landslide feature, what was glacial, whether a piece of sandstone was wind or water deposited; to explain why some volcanoes spew ash and others flow lava; look at a photo of Wyoming and say if it looked like a good place to drill for oil, and why... the list goes on but i think it wouldnt take more than one or two questions to establish the pattern.

Once you'd demonstrated you knew nothing about that we could ask you to do some calculus on the board ? No? Perhaps you know something about uh, what?

Since you are confident that there are dinosaurs, you might be willing to take on the task of finding the names and credentials of the "scientists" who studied one of them, see where the remains are now, get copies of the papers they wrote, and generally back up your claim. You cant come up with what is impolitely called "diddly". Nothing better than that yahoo news link with a blurry photo of who knows what. I've seen better photos of bat boy and the amazing 25 lb grasshopper that some farmer shot with his .30-30 and i saw it all right at the checkout stand.

Uh, cant find names? Nobody at any Japnese university ever heard of anyone studying a dinosaur on their campus? Extensive literature search fails to reveal a document? No ships log, no crewmen to testify?
You say the evidence has all been suppressed... yes... that has to be it.
Worldwide conspiracy to hide the dinosaur evidence.

That is how that would go. if anyone was mean enough to want to hunmiliate you, which i hope they wouldnt be.

Better to try to educate you.

Serious challenge here.... you think there are dinosaurs alive today. You are trying to brush this off with saying your sources are as good as mine, but i just dont believe them. I say that you have no source at all, that if a person tracked it all down like i was saying, the trail would disappear and you'd have absolutely nothing.

Its beyond weird that there could be dinosaurs and unicorns and nobody seems to know it. Are there some other critters roaming about that we should know about?

Your unicorn sites were about a two horned african giraffe relative, and an extinct rhino.

If you cant do any better than that with dinosaurs maybe you should quit for a while till you have something besides hot air.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
OK- so far we have plenty of claims that "there is evidence" and one wikipedia entry... I'm not seeing evidence (or, as you say, literary evidence) apart from what you write here as your opinion... :) Where are the links to scientific findings, sources etc.?



ontop of that there is much evidence debunking the belief of millions of years for fossils and the earth. but im trying to keep on topic, as you asked for supporting evidence right?

there is also evidence debunking the idea of dinosaurs being entirely extinct, and also debunking the idea of man and dino living together.

there are many explanations with evidence supporting them as far as these things go. they also have evidence against them, just like evolution :rolleyes:

I think the important thing here is to stick to finding evidences for both theories, rather than trying to dismiss theories. because nothing can be proven right or wrong, on either side of the theory.

I also think we need to stay away from claims like "creationism has no credible evidences"

and try to stick to finding evidences for your own adopted theory.

there are many people in between beliefs and that their choice.. I can't force my belief upon anyone just like they can't force theirs upon me.

however, when asked my opinion I make no attempt to be unopinionated..

if that makes sense;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
the flood theory, what I posted about it.. questions whether the data that evolutionists have about the fossil record should be taken as evidence supporting evolution.

I agree. the same reasoning can be applied to any theory of how we got here. and it quite frequently is.
OK- but just because this story (not theory) questions another idea doesn't make it supporting evidence for a literal 7 day creation....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,827 Posts
OK- but just because this story (not theory) questions another idea doesn't make it supporting evidence for a literal 7 day creation....
I wanted him to provide me with evidence that there are still unicorns; he got ma a photo of an okapi, a two horned giraffe relative. Then a link to an extinct rhino. Those are not unicorns. But the trail went cold after that. No more evidence...

I wanted evidence for the continued existence of dinosaurs. i got a blurry photo, and assurance that "scientists" had studied it in Japan. And something vague about the evidence being suppressed. So that explains that trail going cold.... Agents probably got in and intimidated the scientists who then destroyed the tissue samples before being whisked away to a special depot.

We have better evidence than that for Elvis being alive.

I guess it comes down to that some people will just believe what they are determined to believe, and that they just have no ability to sort out what has a credible source and what is checkout stand tabloid news. Bat Boy and the submarine on Mars.
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
I wanted him to provide me with evidence that there are still unicorns; he got ma a photo of an okapi, a two horned giraffe relative. Then a link to an extinct rhino. Those are not unicorns. But the trail went cold after that. No more evidence...

I wanted evidence for the continued existence of dinosaurs. i got a blurry photo, and assurance that "scientists" had studied it in Japan. And something vague about the evidence being suppressed. So that explains that trail going cold.... Agents probably got in and intimidated the scientists who then destroyed the tissue samples before being whisked away to a special depot.

We have better evidence than that for Elvis being alive.

I guess it comes down to that some people will just believe what they are determined to believe, and that they just have no ability to sort out what has a credible source and what is checkout stand tabloid news. Bat Boy and the submarine on Mars.
ok. that my friend is a personal attack. I am convinced that Im no longer dealing with people willing to learn. you want to insult me like you have been in the PM's sure whatever. in public Im seriously offended. dont respect my opinion then thats fine.

I specifically said that I could provide evidence suggesting that these legends and myths could have been related to a rhino. the chances that all those legends and fairy tales were related just to one time mutations of normally two horned animals are still greater then your proposed hypothesis of man OR ANY OTHER SPECIES. evolving.
 

·
just doin my job..
Joined
·
421 Posts
OK- but just because this story (not theory) questions another idea doesn't make it supporting evidence for a literal 7 day creation....
if evolution is a theory I dont see why a worldwide flood cant be a theory?

floods can be tested and observed. on a small scale of course. evolution cannot be observed small scale. a common misunderstanding is that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are related. observing micro evolution does not support any hypothesis about macro evolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,268 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
ok. that my friend is a personal attack. I am convinced that Im no longer dealing with people willing to learn. you want to insult me like you have been in the PM's sure whatever. in public Im seriously offended. dont respect my opinion then thats fine.

I specifically said that I could provide evidence suggesting that these legends and myths could have been related to a rhino. the chances that all those legends and fairy tales were related just to one time mutations of normally two horned animals are still greater then your proposed hypothesis of man OR ANY OTHER SPECIES. evolving.
Maybe I'm missing something... but... blurry and unrelated photos of animals of other species are not 'evidence'. That's just pointing to a random animal with horns and saying "Gee- ya know- the unicorn could have been related to that at one time" Or "Hey this is an awfully big sea critter- maybe it's a dinosaur"..... *Lost and confused* Where's the *evidence*?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top