Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

What is the best explanation for Polystrate Fossils?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The explanations of Darwinists for the existence of strata run into numerous fundamental problems that are fatal to their ideas. This is why they consistently steer conversations toward nonsense and irrationality.

    For example, they cannot even give a sensible explanation of deposition. If we take a simple, hypothetical lake with a river running into it, the long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years. However, if we look at an actual lake, we find that sediment in and sediment out quickly reaches an equilibrium. That is, for every grain that enters the lake, another will be swept out of it.

    They have workarounds for this, suggesting that long-term subsidence continually created disequilibrium, allowing constant net deposition. That's where they insist that the conversation not include the fact that strata can be continent-sized.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      The explanations of Darwinists for the existence of strata run into numerous fundamental problems that are fatal to their ideas. This is why they consistently steer conversations toward nonsense and irrationality.

      For example, they cannot even give a sensible explanation of deposition. If we take a simple, hypothetical lake with a river running into it, the long-age idea is that sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years. However, if we look at an actual lake, we find that sediment in and sediment out quickly reaches an equilibrium. That is, for every grain that enters the lake, another will be swept out of it.

      They have workarounds for this, suggesting that long-term subsidence continually created disequilibrium, allowing constant net deposition. That's where they insist that the conversation not include the fact that strata can be continent-sized.
      Are you saying that there are continents that were entirely covered by lakes in the past?

      Stuart

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
        Are you saying that there are continents that were entirely covered by lakes in the past?Stuart
        Reading is your second language, isn't it?

        NEWS FLASH: The entire planet was covered in water.
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
          The density of cosmic ray tracks left in surface moon rocks corresponds to an age of 4.51 billion years old.
          Non-sequitur; it's obviously just a meaningless coincidence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            1. Rocks on Earth:
            Zircons found in Western Australia date by uranium-lead radioisotope dating to 4.37 billion years old.
            That's all very cute, but relies on some unprovable assumptions about the origin of the elements in the first place.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            What further discussion would be of particular interest to you?
            The origin of radioactive elements on earth.

            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
              Perhaps I should have started one step back: what is your understanding of what scientific peer review is, and how it works in practice?

              Stuart
              The evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
              WARNING: Graphic video here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                Reading is your second language, isn't it?

                NEWS FLASH: The entire planet was covered in water.
                Are you claiming that continents were completely covered by lakes, which had "a river running into it...sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years...sediment in and sediment out quickly reaches an equilibrium. That is, for every grain that enters the lake, another will be swept out of it."?

                Stuart

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  That's all very cute, but relies on some unprovable assumptions about the origin of the elements in the first place.

                  ...The origin of radioactive elements on earth.
                  But without discussion of the origin of the elements you would accept that cosmic ray track densities demonstrate the 4.5 billion year history of surface moon rocks?

                  Stuart

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                    Non-sequitur; it's obviously just a meaningless coincidence.
                    What would you say is the most obvious demonstration of that coincidence?

                    Stuart

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
                      The evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.
                      And what is your understanding of the outcomes that are expected of this process?

                      Stuart

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                        Are you saying that there are continents that were entirely covered by lakes in the past?

                        Stuart


                        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                        Are you claiming that continents were completely covered by lakes, which had "a river running into it...sediment will build up in layers on the lake bed over thousands of years...sediment in and sediment out quickly reaches an equilibrium. That is, for every grain that enters the lake, another will be swept out of it."?

                        Stuart
                        No, 阿呆.

                        Not "lakes," plural.

                        OCEAN, singular.

                        The flood waters covered the entire earth. That means ALL LAND WAS COVERED.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                          And what is your understanding of the outcomes that are expected of this process?

                          Stuart
                          I expect the outcomes to be that which preserves the incomes of the "peers" in question. In other words: Conformity. The status quo, etc.
                          WARNING: Graphic video here.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post





                            No, 阿呆.

                            Not "lakes," plural.

                            OCEAN, singular.

                            The flood waters covered the entire earth. That means ALL LAND WAS COVERED.
                            Are you quite sure that is what Stripe meant?

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
                              I expect the outcomes to be that which preserves the incomes of the "peers" in question. In other words: Conformity. The status quo, etc.
                              Do you apply your idea to the Journal of Creation Science, which is also claimed to contain peer-reviewed science?

                              Stuart

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                                What would you say is the most obvious demonstration of that coincidence?

                                Stuart
                                I get that the density of cosmic ray tracks left in surface moon rocks corresponds to an age of 4.51 billion years old. I also know that according to you Darwinists, the age of the solar system is approximately 4.571 billion years. I further understand that those numbers might seem to gel together rather perfectly. It's all just a little too convenient, if you ask me.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X