19 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobSure plate tectonics is why there up there. But science says it taken millions of years. How can they prove that? How do they know it didn't happen much sooner and at a much faster rate? Under the tremendous weight of a sudden flood why couldn't all these movements of the earths crust not have happened much faster?
The fact that mountains have shells on top is evidence of plate tectonics.
To answer your point above, again this is a classic case of you picking and choosing which bits of science are correct and which bits are wrong. Your quite happy to accept the carbon dating of this plant as accurate as you can bizarrely link it to your Biblical story. But i gu ...[text shortened]... s found of mountain tops are obviously incorrect as they don't conform to your Biblical story?!
You tell me to think out of the box..I challenge you to do the same.
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75How can they prove that?
Sure plate tectonics is why there up there. But science says it taken millions of years. How can they prove that? How do they know it didn't happen much sooner and at a much faster rate? Under the tremendous weight of a sudden flood why couldn't all these movements of the earths crust not have happened much faster?
You tell me to think out of the box..I challenge you to do the same.
Numerous dating techniques. ie, radiometric dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
How do they know it didn't happen much sooner and at a much faster rate?
See the above.
19 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes I understand the dating technics here. I have no problem with that per say. But wouldn't the date of the rocks and shell fossils still be the same no matter where they would be located as in the ocean as they originally were or on top a mountain?
[b]How can they prove that?
Numerous dating techniques. ie, radiometric dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
How do they know it didn't happen much sooner and at a much faster rate?
See the above.[/b]
They would still be the same age not matter how fast the area in question rose up to the height they are today..correct?
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75Sorry, my mistake i forgot you weren't a Young Earth Creationist.
Yes I understand the dating technics here. I have no problem with that per say. But wouldn't the date of the rocks and shell fossils still be the same no matter where they would be located as in the ocean as they originally were or on top a mountain?
They would still be the same age not matter how fast the area in question rose up to the height they are today..correct?
The speeds at which the plate tectonics move have been mapped and are well known. But let's just say your theory is true, i have two problems with it.
1. How is water going to suddenly thrust a colossal piece of the earths crust up to 8km up into the air. Do you have any idea what forces are needed to do that?! Look at the Japanese tsunami, a massive amount of water was forced inland, was any land jetted up into the air? No.
2. If mountains were suddenly thrust up into the air, the gap where that land used to be would be new, in your case 4,000yrs old as that is when you believe this all happened.
19 May 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobWe were talking about 5,000 not 4,000.
Sorry, my mistake i forgot you weren't a Young Earth Creationist.
The speeds at which the plate tectonics move have been mapped and are well known. But let's just say your theory is true, i have two problems with it.
1. How is water going to suddenly thrust a colossal piece of the earths crust up to 8km up into the air. Do you have any idea what ...[text shortened]... d to be would be new, in your case 4,000yrs old as that is when you believe this all happened.
19 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75This is more than a bit sketchy, but are you asserting that all all mountains having evidence of having been at one time at or below sea level were created 5200 years ago by a great flood?
Common sense. If you suddenly thrust trillions of tons of water on the surface of the earth and with the crust being different thicknesses with different strengths, then you would easily have some of the crust sinking to lower levels and then some of the crust being pushed up to higher levels.
The fact that many mountain tops have shell fossils up that high would prove that.
19 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
This is more than a bit sketchy, but are you asserting that all all mountains having evidence of having been at one time at sea level were created 5200 years ago by a great flood?
19 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75So, whenever you are shown to be illogical, you tell yourself it's because of some "trick angle"?
I'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
Case in point for an underlying theme of the "Theory of evolution serves Satan" thread: "Can an individual who believes [that anything that contradicts the Watchtower Society are the words of Satan] engage in a discussion based in reason?"
You are enslaved by fear.
19 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
So, whenever you are shown to be illogical, you tell yourself it's because of some "trick angle"?
Case in point for an underlying theme of the "Theory of evolution serves Satan" thread: "Can an individual who believes [that anything that contradicts the Watchtower Society are the words of Satan] engage in a discussion based in reason?"
You are enslaved by fear.
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75How does this flower, which has been dated to 5,200 years old validate something you believe occurred 4381 years ago?
I'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
19 May 11
Originally posted by galveston75While I can understand a young teen being afraid to engage in intelligent discussion, from what I gather you are no longer a young teen. Isn't it time you matured?
I'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
19 May 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm going to pass on answering you as you always have some trick angle going on in the background instead of asking an honest question. Sorry.
While I can understand a young teen being afraid to engage in intelligent discussion, from what I gather you are no longer a young teen. Isn't it time you matured?
19 May 11
Evidently we have an answer to an underlying theme of the"Theory of evolution serves Satan" thread: "Can an individual who believes [that anything that contradicts the Watchtower Society are the words of Satan] engage in a discussion based in reason?"
Based on this discussion with G75 and other discussions with him and RC, the answer would seem to be "No".