gcthomas
New member
That river meanders far too much to be a flash flood excavation. And I'm sure the flood couldn't have both deposited the rock with the fossils in AND then cut the canyon.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
That river meanders far too much to be a flash flood excavation. And I'm sure the flood couldn't have both deposited the rock with the fossils in AND then cut the canyon.
I'm not sure if I understand you or not. Correctly or not. My thought is that the river that runs through the canyon could not have created the canyon. It is not wide enough. There is not enough breadth of water flow.
gcthomas
New member
The rock is nothing like flood deposits, and there are clearly areas where there was uplift and erosion representing long periods between deposits.
And which creationist websites have you got your information from, and why would you consider them reliable?
This thread looks like yet another one where yet again creationists, keen to find some credibility for their mythologies but ignorant of the nature and findings of paleontology, geology and molecular biology, just copy and paste stuff they don't understand, testing it against the criticisms of people here who do know about science, but ultimately for their own justification will find whatever excuses they can to reject those criticisms.
It is a moronic view of the universe in my opinion, to decide first how things must go based on ignorant ancient stories, then desperately try to justify them.
How about, for a pleasant change, starting with the evidence and seeing where that takes you?
If you are willing to accept that route for a minute, then the answers are:
Age of universe: 13.798±0.037 billion years
Age of the solar system: 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
Here's a pretty diagram from the Wikipedia page on geological time:
However, if you are unwilling to take this course, then anyone who believes the earth is only a few thousands of years old is asserting that the whole contents of the diagram above should fit into the width of the vertical black line at the top. It is the equivalent to asserting that the distance between Los Angeles and New York is a matter of a couple of hundred yards.
Stuart
Last edited:
I can't remember. I studied both YEC and OEC years ago.
I do watch Creation Today these days.
gcthomas
New member
Well, you're not going to learn any science from them. Try reading Scientific American instead.
So the question is, how do you find a source of information about the history of our universe that doesn't have a doctrine to justify?
Stuart
noguru
Well-known member
He does not seem bright enough to come to an answer for that.
I believe this was discovered by people who were not creationists, what I am talking about.And which creationist websites have you got your information from, and why would you consider them reliable?
This thread looks like yet another one where yet again creationists, keen to find some credibility for their mythologies but ignorant of the nature and findings of paleontology, geology and molecular biology, just copy and paste stuff they don't understand, testing it against the criticisms of people here who do know about science, but ultimately for their own justification will find whatever excuses they can to reject those criticisms.
It is a moronic view of the universe in my opinion, to decide first how things must go based on ignorant ancient stories, then desperately try to justify them.
How about, for a pleasant change, starting with the evidence and seeing where that takes you?
If you are willing to accept that route for a minute, then the answers are:
Age of universe: 13.798±0.037 billion years
Age of the solar system: 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years
Here's a pretty diagram from the Wikipedia page on geological time:
However, if you are unwilling to take this course, then anyone who believes the earth is only a few thousands of years old is asserting that the whole contents of the diagram above should fit into the width of the vertical black line at the top. It is the equivalent to asserting that the distance between Los Angeles and New York is a matter of a couple of hundred yards.
Stuart
There are a lot of ideas in the world. I generally give more credibility to those who believe in God. I'm not sure about Scientific American. I know I don't read it.
But each idea must stand on its own merit.
The question is if I consider evidence objectively.
I discovered a long time ago that my objective truth might not actually be objective. That is, my objective position was subjective. It was relegated to my own experience. I discovered, however, that each of us are in this predicament. But I have still chosen to believe there is such a thing as objective truth.
True vs. False
Truth vs. Falsehood
Absolute vs. Relative
Objective vs. Subjective
noguru
Well-known member
So if someone claims belief in God you automatically give them more credibility, without verifying their claims?
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, we are all in a predicament of trying to align our subjective view of the world with the objective reality. And how do you think that is best accomplished?
No. If they actually believe in God may be different than if they just say that they do. Our words and our actions tell the world about us and hopefully more than that. Hopefully they tell the world about the God that we serve.
But if a person says they do not believe in God, I'm not going to as much consider that what they have to say might be of some spiritual benefit to me.
If reality is what is and truth testifies (or corresponds) to that reality then there is a similarity between objective truth and objective reality.
noguru
Well-known member
You totally skirted my question with that. Objective reality is objective truth. There is only one objective reality, there are a multitude of subjective perspectives. Can you now answer this:
Yes, we are all in a predicament of trying to align our subjective view of the world with the objective reality. And how do you think that is best accomplished?
noguru
Well-known member
How do you know if someone's belief in God gives them an accurate view of the objective reality?
So do you verify the truth claims less thoroughly for those who believe in God (in the way you approve) than those people who do not believe in God.
- Status