This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. How To Get To Heaven When You Die

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#161
Give me a while and I'll read this. About to hop into some meetings.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#162
The first section of the article above asserts that it's basically "weird" that places above sea level have marine fossils; therefore that means there was a flood.

There is nothing weird about marine fossils existings in the grand canyon because it DID have marine life in it because it was a river. There is extensive geological research on GC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area

Furthermore, the article brings up marine fossils in the Himalayas. We know how this happened because of continental drift. That's HOW the Himalayas were formed a very, very long time ago. Land masses push against each other and create mountains over millions of years. When those layers of sediment were formed a long time ago, they weren't on a mountain, they were closer to sea level and were underwater. Millions upon millions of years later, continents shifted, mashed against each other, and it makes mountains.

Again, this has been extensively studied, peer-reviewed, and agreed upon in the scientific community. I can cite as many credible sources as you'd like.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: xfrodobagginsx

xfrodobagginsx
3 months ago#163
Asherlee10 posted...
xfrodobagginsx posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
Would you mind citing some sources about a global flood? I have my doubts considering much of the world wasn't part of recorded history for a long time.

There may have been a large area flood, but not global.


Try this link and let me know if you have any questions:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/


This is no different than what PokemonExpert44 supplied, I'm sorry. Many of the citations in his article come from this website, which is not credible and uses pseudo-science.

I'll provide an example:

Was Noah’s Flood Global?
Did Noah experience a local flood which left only a few sediment layers, as floods do today? God’s record is clear: the water covered the entire globe and killed all the animals on earth. Such unique conditions are the only way to explain worldwide fossil-bearing layers thousands of feet deep.


This provides no actual justification/evidence/answer to the question, "was it global?" -- It just says, "God says so." Furthermore, we know why fossils exist in many sediment layers, it's because the earth is 4.5 billion years old (roughly) and we've seen various forms of life that left fossil remains for last several hundreds of millions of years. This is a fact, which has been peer-reviewed, studied extensively, and is a general consensus across the scientific community.


I don't believe that it just says :"God says so"

Wrong. The layers were created rapidly after the flood where flood waters would recede thousands of miles back and forth over several months. That's why you find trees all over the world sticking through all of the fossil layers that are supposedly millions of years old. They aren't millions of years old. Dinosaur bones contain soft tissue. That's not possible if they were really millions of years old.

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
3 months ago#164
xfrodobagginsx posted...
Wrong. The layers were created rapidly after the flood where flood waters would recede thousands of miles back and forth over several months. That's why you find trees all over the world sticking through all of the fossil layers that are supposedly millions of years old. They aren't millions of years old. Dinosaur bones contain soft tissue. That's not possible if they were really millions of years old.

What is more likely, that everything known about depositional environments and stratigraphy are in error or that this 'global flood' is not a literal recounting? All else aside, it is well documented that soft tissues do not fossilize (where any claims to the contrary have to answer to, among other things, why the gaps in the fossil record conveniently include soft-bodied taxa--worms, fungi, what have you--primarily). Look into Lagerstatten for the examples you're speaking of. They are incidental geologic gold mines of unique environments that deposited so rapidly as to provide maximal preservation, probably due to removing oppressive oxidation. Some such outcrops are so transient as to vanish once exposed to air for mere seconds, though the more popular examples are not like that.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: Asherlee10

Asherlee10
3 months ago#165
zinformant gave an excellent response, I can't really add anything else to it.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."

User Info: xfrodobagginsx

xfrodobagginsx
2 months ago#166
zinformant posted...
xfrodobagginsx posted...
Wrong. The layers were created rapidly after the flood where flood waters would recede thousands of miles back and forth over several months. That's why you find trees all over the world sticking through all of the fossil layers that are supposedly millions of years old. They aren't millions of years old. Dinosaur bones contain soft tissue. That's not possible if they were really millions of years old.

What is more likely, that everything known about depositional environments and stratigraphy are in error or that this 'global flood' is not a literal recounting? All else aside, it is well documented that soft tissues do not fossilize (where any claims to the contrary have to answer to, among other things, why the gaps in the fossil record conveniently include soft-bodied taxa--worms, fungi, what have you--primarily). Look into Lagerstatten for the examples you're speaking of. They are incidental geologic gold mines of unique environments that deposited so rapidly as to provide maximal preservation, probably due to removing oppressive oxidation. Some such outcrops are so transient as to vanish once exposed to air for mere seconds, though the more popular examples are not like that.


There are thousands of Creation Scientists who disagree with the evolutionary model of things. They all look at the same exact evidence, yet they draw different conclusions. Fossils that are millions of year old couldn't contain soft tissue, yet they find them all of the time with soft tissue inside them because the fossils aren't really as old as they say. The dating methods are flawed. The reason that you see The system is set up with the supposition that everything must be millions of years old to fit their false evolutionary lie. The global flood is a literal recounting. The fossils were deposited rapidly is because of the global flood. You have made my point. Thank you. When you say "gaps in the fossil record", the text books and the actual earth are not the same. The text books illustrate that all of the primative creatures are on the bottom and all of the more advanced creatures are at the top, however, in the real earth you find advanced creatures at the bottom and vice versa. With that said, naturally, there would be more clams, snails and such at the bottom anyway because those types of animals would be more likely to sink in the water. Larger animals would be more likely to float.

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
2 months ago#167
In response to a note in another thread, this board does not typically devolve like this. I'm not sure what's going on right now to make this same discussion occur in different topics.
xfrodobagginsx posted...
zinformant posted...
xfrodobagginsx posted...
Wrong. The layers were created rapidly after the flood where flood waters would recede thousands of miles back and forth over several months. That's why you find trees all over the world sticking through all of the fossil layers that are supposedly millions of years old. They aren't millions of years old. Dinosaur bones contain soft tissue. That's not possible if they were really millions of years old.

What is more likely, that everything known about depositional environments and stratigraphy are in error or that this 'global flood' is not a literal recounting? All else aside, it is well documented that soft tissues do not fossilize (where any claims to the contrary have to answer to, among other things, why the gaps in the fossil record conveniently include soft-bodied taxa--worms, fungi, what have you--primarily). Look into Lagerstatten for the examples you're speaking of. They are incidental geologic gold mines of unique environments that deposited so rapidly as to provide maximal preservation, probably due to removing oppressive oxidation. Some such outcrops are so transient as to vanish once exposed to air for mere seconds, though the more popular examples are not like that.


There are thousands of Creation Scientists who disagree with the evolutionary model of things Creation science is little more than a cult. There is, after all, no meaningful debate between creation and evolution. One has no reason to reject the latter regardless of one's opinion towards the former.. They all look at the same exact evidence Any data set can be presented--spun, if you will--to tell a desired tale if one has conflict of interest with the exercise. Creation "scientists" do not practice science; they try to twist the natural world to fit an extreme interpretation of a very old text., yet they draw different conclusions. Fossils that are millions of year old couldn't contain soft tissue, yet they find them all of the time with soft tissue inside them because the fossils aren't really as old as they say I already told you why this is. Besides, do you think that, maybe...just maybe...if this simple explanation--a single, unfathomably destructive extinction event--had merit that folks would want to present that conclusion? Geology was born in the context of strong sentiment against its findings. Even tectonic theory was rejected for awhile in the twentieth century. It took a few lifetimes and many's life's work to build this narrative.. The dating methods are flawed You only hear this argument from the non-physical scientists. Why is that?.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
2 months ago#168
xfrodobagginsx posted...
The reason that you see The system is set up with the supposition No, that's a conclusion. that everything must be millions of years old to fit their false evolutionary lie. The global flood is a literal recounting. The fossils were deposited rapidly is because of the global flood I did not mean to dive into the historicity of Noah's ark, but meaningful alternate hypotheses are only proposed to explain specific regional events, not everything. We don't know why the giant kitties and sloths died, specifically, but nobody actually believes that they drowned only four or five thousand years ago; it happened about twice that, in fact. Besides, that narrative--that nearly all taxa died in this global flood--has theological problems, something about kinds and all that.. You have made my point. Thank you Stellar discussion skills.... When you say "gaps in the fossil record", the text books and the actual earth are not the same. The text books illustrate that all of the primative creatures are on the bottom and all of the more advanced creatures are at the top This story is a little more complicated than this, but I question whether you've actually interacted with this material at all., however, in the real earth you find advanced creatures at the bottom and vice versa. With that said, naturally, there would be more clams, snails and such at the bottom anyway because those types of animals would be more likely to sink in the water. Larger animals would be more likely to float How silly! There are snails on 'the bottom' because gastropods have been around for a long time, most of the time paleobiologists are interested in, in fact. Humorously, they're not anywhere near the bottom in places where the bottom exists because the bottom contains no or primitive life. Most of Earth history was uneventful, and those strata have been pretty warped, anyway.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: xfrodobagginsx

xfrodobagginsx
2 months ago#169
Zinformant, If you really want to have a discussion, learn to properly use the quote button without burying and interjecting a bunch of your own thoughts inside of mine.

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
2 months ago#170
Frodo lecturing others on how to have a discussion? Ha.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. How To Get To Heaven When You Die