Diamonds grow like tree rings, but millions of years:

Originally posted by RJHinds
How many times do I have to tell you that evilution is not science. It is a belief by some people, so that makes it either philosophy or religion. Intelligent Design is probably science, since even the evilutions have noticed design in nature. Science is observable, repeatable, and testable at least. Evilution is not observable. Evilution has never been shown to be repeatable and all tests to show evilution have failed.

The Instructor

I wasn't even talking about evolution, which BTW is a fact undeniable except for nutters like yourself. I was talking about the age of the Earth which also nutters like yourself think is only 6000 years old, which you will apparently take to the grave. But that is also false. In order to protect your ridiculous fantasy you HAVE to deny deny deny the age issue. I don't care how many times you tell me evolution is false and failed, you and your creationist buddies are the ones in the vast minority and I will go with real science not pseudo science weaponized bull crap video's that have only BS stories not real science which has refuted your so-called scientists time and time again in real scientific journals not some washed up assshole with a video agenda.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And again avoiding the idea it takes millions of years for a diamond, large diamonds, to form in that mantle. You just can have it take that long since it goes against your built in dogma about the ridiculous notion the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Cling to that fantasy all you want, it still won't get you into your nirvana.

I don't think a religious person must cling to the 6000 years of the bible. We know that the crew of Noahs ark could not have had enough personel on board to take care of all the animals. Keep in mind this would have included dinosaurs and all. So if one thing in the bible is wrong then why stick to the 6000 year deal? Granted they could have taken the very young of each kind, but it would have been impossible to have kept all the animals on the ark fed. With that said, there are problems with science blurring the lines of theory and fact. Running with the best theory until it is proven wrong is fine until it is taught as fact.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I don't think a religious person must cling to the 6000 years of the bible. We know that the crew of Noahs ark could not have had enough personel on board to take care of all the animals. Keep in mind this would have included dinosaurs and all. So if one thing in the bible is wrong then why stick to the 6000 year deal? Granted they could have taken the ve ...[text shortened]... fact. Running with the best theory until it is proven wrong is fine until it is taught as fact.

So you consider evolution as just a theory totally unproven and not worth the effort to learn and it doesn't teach us anything about how life changes? Or the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years? Or the Ark is just an allegory? That's all it is you know, a cautionary tale designed to reign in an unruly population 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

Do you really think there was a world wide flood? Do you think evolution is not a science because it does not address the issue of how lie started on Earth?

Life origin is a totally different branch of science, something Hinds and his cohorts can't seem to get across their addled brains, INSISTING if you don't know origins you can't know evolution, which is patently false.

They are two separate sciences and there is nothing the right wing religious nutters can do about that except make more stupid weaponized pseudo-science video's with nothing but washed over opinion with no actual science backing them that hasn't been refuted time and time again, yet another video comes out with the same old crap thinking maybe they can convince another audience.

All that amounts to is politicized religious agenda building to further their case to Islamisize the US but in christianity instead. They don't want to stop at the mere forcing of creationism to be taught in a science classroom as if it were an actual science, which you have to agree it is decidedly not.

Their long term goals go WAY past that to total takeover of the government to force their tired doctrine on America. No abortions for any reason, for instance. Just one example of their real goals.

Which is why I fight them at every turn. It's a shame that in the 21st century we have to come up with defenses against the attacks of the religious right wing nutters ALL THE TIME. That is PRECISELY why I want freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion.

Make no mistake about it, it is war, religious war, the crusades of the 21st century. War against reason, against the very intelligence that their so-called god gave us in the first place.

Why would this so-called god give us intelligence if we are not to use it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you consider evolution as just a theory totally unproven and not worth the effort to learn and it doesn't teach us anything about how life changes? Or the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years? Or the Ark is just an allegory? That's all it is you know, a cautionary tale designed to reign in an unruly population 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

Do you really ...[text shortened]... t place.

Why would this so-called god give us intelligence if we are not to use it?

We don't call for Creationism to be taught in school. We will settle for Intelligent Design.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you consider evolution as just a theory totally unproven and not worth the effort to learn and it doesn't teach us anything about how life changes? Or the Earth is a lot older than 6000 years? Or the Ark is just an allegory? That's all it is you know, a cautionary tale designed to reign in an unruly population 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

Do you really ...[text shortened]... t place.

Why would this so-called god give us intelligence if we are not to use it?

I don't know if evolution is fact or theory. For me it hasn't been proven yet. It does have a place in science and should be taught as a theory. One of science strengths is that is asks for proof and not just belief. We operate in a sea of politics and financial pressures as well as belief system bias. Yes science has been compromised but at least it looks for proof when it is working correctly.That is more than the religions of the world do. Science is also limited in some cases to being observational where an experiment can not be set up to prove things. I have no problem with that at all but it is limited by our perceptions of what we see and what it means. I do believe there has been a flood or series of smaller floods. Whether it is merely ice dams breaking or by design I don't know. Did god create by evolution? Is there evolution processes without god? Is there a god? I don't know and can't prove any of it. I tend to think that there is a creator because of the intricate nature of what we see around us and the balance necessary for life to exist. That is my belief but I can't prove it. I don't think it is any different thinking a god always existed than whatever existed before the universe. But getting back to things being taught as fact when it is theory. This goes counterproductive to science as it closes the minds of the students. I would say keep an open mind and one day theory may become fact or thrown away for something better. The bible is one book for one type of religion. I could not say it is better or worse than the publications of other religions. To me this makes an interpretation of Noahs flood almost irrelevant. If I ever find gods word on a set of platinum sheets hovering about three feet off the ground and is impervious to any type of destruction, I will believe it 🙂

Originally posted by joe beyser
I don't know if evolution is fact or theory. For me it hasn't been proven yet. It does have a place in science and should be taught as a theory. One of science strengths is that is asks for proof and not just belief. We operate in a sea of politics and financial pressures as well as belief system bias. Yes science has been compromised but at least it look ee feet off the ground and is impervious to any type of destruction, I will believe it 🙂

I can agree with that. Till then, we have to go with science, not fairy tales.

Don't you think the disaster that was religion 1000 years ago can return? I think it can and that's why I fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening again. There is nothing inherent in the fact we are a few thousand years removed from the Talmud and bible and Quran that keeps us protected from the religious atrocities of the past, you can see it happening in Yemen where whole villages are killed outright because they refuse to convert to Islam. It can CERTAINLY happen again, right back to the crusades and all. For instance, suppose the climatologists are correct, we are in for a rude awakening 100 years down the road, we can't grow crops, a billion people die of starvation, you can bet your boopie all the religious fervor will return with a bang and goodbye any hope of progress.

It would probably be ten time WORSE than 1000 years ago because now there would be billions of people not a hundred million or so even after a few billion die of starvation. Billions left and new nations growing deeply involved with religion as part of the government, Iranisized but for the whole planet with new religious wars happening 24/7/365. It's a frightening thought.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I can agree with that. Till then, we have to go with science, not fairy tales.

Don't you think the disaster that was religion 1000 years ago can return? I think it can and that's why I fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening again. There is nothing inherent in the fact we are a few thousand years removed from the Talmud and bible and Quran that ...[text shortened]... for the whole planet with new religious wars happening 24/7/365. It's a frightening thought.

Nothing scarier than religious fanatics for sure. I have found amongst friends and family that a religious person can justify anything they want by adjusting their interpretation of the good book. As small in comparison to the bible, the constitution is constantly being reinterpreted to justify one thing or another. Why would the bible be any different? The older movie- Ordained To Kill -seems very realistic to me. People have a hard time understanding the difference between what they believe and what they know. Science should not fall into this. A person can believe what they want, but should not victimize others based on their beliefs. Unfortunately this is the history of humanity. The Idea of if your not with us then you are against us is a common pitfall of society. There is plenty of room in-between. Take the fact that diamonds can be formed quickly or slowly. If it can be proven it takes millions of years for some to form then the 6000 year thing is dead. The position of the hot spot under yellowstone moving over time is more evidence than one needs without any of the questionable dating interpretations or mineral formations entering the debate. We can see in a lifetime that yellowstone which has changed little had to have been around much longer than 6000 years, especially when one can see where the eruptions have been in the past. We may or may not be able to date it accurately but we KNOW it was more than 6000 years. The proof is in the geology and anyone can study it. A religious person would say if you don't believe the earth is 6000 years old than you are against god and those who believe it. Take the hell fire doctrine, it is such a man made concept on its face and shows how dangerous religious belief can be. You will burn forever in torment if you don't believe what we do. LOL

Originally posted by joe beyser
Nothing scarier than religious fanatics for sure. I have found amongst friends and family that a religious person can justify anything they want by adjusting their interpretation of the good book. As small in comparison to the bible, the constitution is constantly being reinterpreted to justify one thing or another. Why would the bible be any different? T ...[text shortened]... religious belief can be. You will burn forever in torment if you don't believe what we do. LOL

One big piece of evidence about the age of the Earth: the spreading seafloor between Africa and South America.

I presume you have looked at a map of the world and see the striking similarity in reverse of the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa. That is no co-incidence.

The sea floor is visibly spreading out like a conveyor belt with hot molten magma seeping up in a long line from almost Antarctica to Greenland and the when the rock cools it traps a bit of Earth's magnetic field and retains the polarity of it so just reading the magnetic polarities of the retained fields in the rocks you can read the history of Earth's magnetic fields, the reversals and such over millions of years.

It is happening at a pretty steady but slow rate, spreading in average at the rate fingernails grow, maybe an inch a year or less but it never stops, and shows that going back in time, millions of years ago, South America and Africa were crunched up together, separate crustal plates sliding around on hot magma like chocolate chips floating around on a plate of hot water.

So we can sum up the time it took for Africa and South America to have slid as far apart as they are today and we have to conclude many millions of years go by for that much movement.

But the Young Earthers fight that tooth and nail, they can't admit there could be ANY process on Earth that takes millions of years. Admit that and their whole house of cards falls apart.

Originally posted by sonhouse
One big piece of evidence about the age of the Earth: the spreading seafloor between Africa and South America.

I presume you have looked at a map of the world and see the striking similarity in reverse of the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa. That is no co-incidence.

The sea floor is visibly spreading out like a conveyor belt ...[text shortened]... on Earth that takes millions of years. Admit that and their whole house of cards falls apart.

And don't forget the magnetic reversals. We haven't had one in our lifetime yet how many have happened in the past based on sea floor geology? The 6000 year belief doesn't hold up under scrutiny, but I believe but can't prove there are some processes that were faster than thought. An example would be the Canyonlands national park in Utah. To me it appears to have been carved out by a flood. Also the layers of sandstone seem to have been layed down quickly then eroded quickly. It doesn't prove anything either way, but there was some contradiction of arch formation in Arches national park between their film at the visitor center and the signs on the trails. I think that this is a good example of stating fact when they really don't know.

Originally posted by joe beyser
And don't forget the magnetic reversals. We haven't had one in our lifetime yet how many have happened in the past based on sea floor geology? The 6000 year belief doesn't hold up under scrutiny, but I believe but can't prove there are some processes that were faster than thought. An example would be the Canyonlands national park in Utah. To me it appears ...[text shortened]... e trails. I think that this is a good example of stating fact when they really don't know.

But the underlying sediment was there before whatever flooding happened. So it is reasonable to think it took millions of years for that sediment to build up high enough, like miles thick, to all a flood to carve channels in it. That is the crux, not that a flood could have carved the channels but the fact there was miles of sediment BEFORE the flood predating all that and was there for millions of years.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But the underlying sediment was there before whatever flooding happened. So it is reasonable to think it took millions of years for that sediment to build up high enough, like miles thick, to all a flood to carve channels in it. That is the crux, not that a flood could have carved the channels but the fact there was miles of sediment BEFORE the flood predating all that and was there for millions of years.

Thats the big question is how long it took to be deposited. The bible boys will tell ya that there was a catastrophic event -flood- that deposited it quickly and the stratified layers were the sediments settling out. There does seem to be some evidence of this as petrified logs have been found protruding through several layers. Coal formation is another item that is in question as well. I don't know enough to make a stand one way or another, but it is interesting that coal can be made quickly in the lab as also diamonds can be. I do not think that any of this proves anything about the age of the earth, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the earth had some events that have been misinterpreted.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Thats the big question is how long it took to be deposited. The bible boys will tell ya that there was a catastrophic event -flood- that deposited it quickly and the stratified layers were the sediments settling out. There does seem to be some evidence of this as petrified logs have been found protruding through several layers. Coal formation is another i but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the earth had some events that have been misinterpreted.

Well they say the Grand Canyon was produced by this same world wide flood, (as if) and so now they are saying the underlying sediment was ALSO produced by this same flood? Can they maybe see just how screwed up that is as an argument for ANYTHING? So first this incredible flood covers the ground with miles deep layers of sediment, in what? 40 days and nights? So lets see here, lets say 3 miles of sediment in 40 days, that would be 15,000 feet or 375 feet per day or 15 feet per hour or 3 inches per minute. Wow. THEN the same flood carved a channel a mile deep in that same layer. Where would that much dirt come from anyway that you could deposit 3 inches per minute? 73 mm per minute or over 1 mm per SECOND. That would be some flood, eh. One problem: With a world wide flood, why would the stuff be deposited in the first place, why would it not just keep flowing in the major miles high deep fast moving water? Wouldn't the dirt just stay in the water? I'm trying to wrap my mind around what these people are thinking, or NOT thinking when they say such nonsense but I come up just shaking my head instead.

I guess the key is to NOT try to actually think through the consequences of such a situation. Then there is the underlying moral problem of why a so-called loving god would kill EVERY LAND ANIMAL except those on the Ark to get rid of a few thousand pesky idol worshipers who spent their nights in debauchery.

Does anyone ever even contemplate what kind of a god that would be to kill literally bILLIONS of animals because it is pissed at a few thousand humans?

It just gets more ridiculous the more you think about it. But of course these nagging details don't bother the right wing young earth nutters, just shut off the brain their god supposedly gave them and just believe.

I realize this is outside the realm of science so I posed that question in spiritual also.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well they say the Grand Canyon was produced by this same world wide flood, (as if) and so now they are saying the underlying sediment was ALSO produced by this same flood? Can they maybe see just how screwed up that is as an argument for ANYTHING? So first this incredible flood covers the ground with miles deep layers of sediment, in what? 40 days and night ...[text shortened]...

I realize this is outside the realm of science so I posed that question in spiritual also.

You got it wrong. It rained continually for forty days and nights, but the flood lasted much longer than that. But please take your religious crticisms to the Spirituality Forum because this Forum is to crticize science, as I have said before.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well they say the Grand Canyon was produced by this same world wide flood, (as if) and so now they are saying the underlying sediment was ALSO produced by this same flood? Can they maybe see just how screwed up that is as an argument for ANYTHING? So first this incredible flood covers the ground with miles deep layers of sediment, in what? 40 days and night ...[text shortened]...

I realize this is outside the realm of science so I posed that question in spiritual also.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the bible fellers say more than that. They say the land was lifted also. I can see why they could believe the motion of the water could cut a channel. Not saying that is what happened, but usually there is more to the story. It is interesting to see the different perspectives. I do not believe the petrified log through the stratified layers was a hoax because a Mount ST Helens scenario with a nearby body of water could have caused something like this and there is nothing really to gain by it. The main thing is if a diamond takes millions of years to form then earth is millions of years old. It is hard to say for sure how long they actually took in all cases but we don't need them as evidence of an older earth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You got it wrong. It rained continually for forty days and nights, but the flood lasted much longer than that. But please take your religious crticisms to the Spirituality Forum because this Forum is to crticize science, as I have said before.

The Instructor

I gather you didn't read the last sentence in my post.