But that brings me back to my question.

WOULD such a thread, be ok here if i started one?

4 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

Destroys everyone on Creation so bad no one responds.

You are free to believe in your religion; nobody here is trying to take that away from you. Scientific consensus disagrees with you, which is also fine. You are clearly not an expert in the bible nor science, so a debate with you on the topic is probably the most pointless thing I can think of.

4 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

Destroys everyone on Creation so bad no one responds.

We're honestly just tired of wasting our time.

47 minutes ago, KCDodger said:

We're honestly just tired of wasting our time.

Can't argue with someone that isn't interested in even attempting to understand your points. It's like trying to explain to a 3 year old why they can't have ice cream for dinner. The most rational, well researched, and even handed argument can never sway the screaming child. Good on you for hanging in there as long as you did though. Couldn't have done so myself without devolving into all caps fits of rage. Wouldn't bother responding to them anymore though just for your own mental health. Their posts may be the most draining I've ever read here...

4 hours ago, Hippie Moosen said:

Can't argue with someone that isn't interested in even attempting to understand your points. It's like trying to explain to a 3 year old why they can't have ice cream for dinner. The most rational, well researched, and even handed argument can never sway the screaming child. Good on you for hanging in there as long as you did though. Couldn't have done so myself without devolving into all caps fits of rage. Wouldn't bother responding to them anymore though just for your own mental health. Their posts may be the most draining I've ever read here...

It's less draining and more disappointing honestly. But yeah, kudos to you too.

Six Star Wars jokes.

The Force is Strong in Stephen.

Right, say you can't reason with the person while letting their attack stand. It seems no one has any facts or proof to go against my statements, especially the one about fossils.

1 hour ago, ImperialYeet said:

Right, say you can't reason with the person while letting their attack stand. It seems no one has any facts or proof to go against my statements, especially the one about fossils.

You need to prove that claim.

On 11/18/2020 at 8:17 AM, ImperialYeet said:

Fossils can only form instantly. That is a fact. However, if rocks formed over millions of year(something like a hundred years for a single strata) then fossils would simply not exist. Now, all of probably have some answer for this,like a bunch of floods, but the real logical answer(pushs glasses up*) is a global flood.

Use logic. Think about it.

Well, I'm not an expert on fossils by any means, but a common method of fossils forming is from them becoming quickly buried by mud or silt in riverbank areas, and then slowly turning to rock over longer periods of time. Strata do take a long time to form, but you don't find fossils just anywhere in normal rock: you find them in specific conditions and areas where they were quickly buried and were able to be preserved.

1 hour ago, ImperialYeet said:

Use logic. Think about it.

Sorry, at this point I'm confident I'm not stupid enough to have this conversation.

1 hour ago, Npmartian said:

Well, I'm not an expert on fossils by any means, but a common method of fossils forming is from them becoming quickly buried by mud or silt in riverbank areas, and then slowly turning to rock over longer periods of time. Strata do take a long time to form, but you don't find fossils just anywhere in normal rock: you find them in specific conditions and areas where they were quickly buried and were able to be preserved.

But aren't there sea creatures that were found giving birth to children? Also, that's a lot of floods.

12 minutes ago, hargleblarg said:

Sorry, at this point I'm confident I'm not stupid enough to have this conversation.

I guess that means you didn't think about it.

1 hour ago, ImperialYeet said:

But aren't there sea creatures that were found giving birth to children? Also, that's a lot of floods.

Doesn't have to be floods. Oceans and rivers existed, with muddy banks and floors where a skeleton or dead body could easily be covered. I haven't heard about any fossils where the organism was giving birth, but it doesn't sound out of the question that an animal could die in childbirth along with its child, sink to the bottom, and then the bones of both were fossilized together.

I'm not religious, but the story of the flood is interesting in itself because so many different cultures and religions have stories about it. It's suspected that at one time, there was a massive flood that impacted a large area and many cultures, causing the story of the flood to become a common occurrence in many mythologies and holy books. The flood didn't necessarily cover the whole planet, but it covered everything these cultures had ever seen, so as far as they were concerned, it covered the whole world.

1 hour ago, Npmartian said:

Doesn't have to be floods. Oceans and rivers existed, with muddy banks and floors where a skeleton or dead body could easily be covered. I haven't heard about any fossils where the organism was giving birth, but it doesn't sound out of the question that an animal could die in childbirth along with its child, sink to the bottom, and then the bones of both were fossilized together.

I'm not religious, but the story of the flood is interesting in itself because so many different cultures and religions have stories about it. It's suspected that at one time, there was a massive flood that impacted a large area and many cultures, causing the story of the flood to become a common occurrence in many mythologies and holy books. The flood didn't necessarily cover the whole planet, but it covered everything these cultures had ever seen, so as far as they were concerned, it covered the whole world.

Nah, flooding is just something that happens regionally in many places, at different times. The biblical flood is a 2nd retelling of the story of Prince Ziusudra, who commandeered a barge and put his valuables in it when the Euphrates river rose 30 feet over the levies in a massive flood, and he rode the floodwaters into the persian gulf, and ran aground on a sandbank. Afterwards he made a sacrifice at a hilltop temple to the gods An and Enlil for his fortune in surviving. The first retelling of this story is in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

That's a flood we know happened btw, circa 2800-2900 BC. We have the geological/archeological evidence for it, and have dated it with radio isotopes. As for Ziusudra himself, he's listed in the Sumerian king's list(but he was not yet king at the time of the flood).

6 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

Right, say you can't reason with the person while letting their attack stand. It seems no one has any facts or proof to go against my statements, especially the one about fossils.

Carbon dating. Happy??

5 hours ago, ImperialYeet said:

Use logic. Think about it.

That's not how Science works.

If you fill a tub with layers of different colored sand, and different rocks and debris, then disturb it to represent a great flood you get a mix of colors and debris on different layers. The stratification and clearly defined layers that fossils appear on disprove creationism and the flood myth. In fact you can travel around the world and use our understanding of fossils and stratification to predict where kinds of prehistoric animals will be found successfully. Something that you couldn't do if the stratification all formed because of a great flood.

5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Carbon dating. Happy??

Carbon dating doesn't work on fossils as the carbon has been replaced with minerals. Carbon dating fossils will give you inaccurate results.

Most fossils are dated based on the known dates of their surroundings or by measuring the half life in surrounding rocks.

3 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

Carbon dating doesn't work on fossils as the carbon has been replaced with minerals. Carbon dating fossils will give you inaccurate results.

Most fossils are dated based on the known dates of their surroundings or by measuring the half life in surrounding rocks.

Either way, the point stands: we can date fossils in a way that shows that they do not form instantly.

3 minutes ago, Npmartian said:

Either way, the point stands: we can date fossils in a way that shows that they do not form instantly.

It's important to know the details because creationists/young Earthers like to point out how carbon dating shows dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old. If someone understands why it completely deflates that argument.

12 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

It's important to know the details because creationists/young Earthers like to point out how carbon dating shows dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old. If someone understands why it completely deflates that argument.

That's a fair point. I don't usually do much young-earth debunking so it's good to know if I ever have to.

If the earth is only 6 thousand years old like creationists claim, why do we not see water damage from the flood in the 5000 year old great pyramids?

32 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

It's important to know the details because creationists/young Earthers like to point out how carbon dating shows dinosaurs aren't 65 million years old. If someone understands why it completely deflates that argument.

Well, I know that C-14 degradation only makes carbon dating useful to things from about 14K years ago. So, no, dinosaurs require other techniques because carbon dating actually tells you squat about dino bones.

But it also means that:

Quote

If the earth is only 6 thousand years old like creationists claim, why do we not see water damage from the flood in the 5000 year old great pyramids?

This is impossible, because then EVERYTHING could have a carbon date.

But to someone who requires proof that fossilization is not instantaneous, carbon dating should do.

2 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Well, I know that C-14 degradation only makes carbon dating useful to things from about 14K years ago. So, no, dinosaurs require other techniques.

But it also means that:

This is impossible, because then EVERYTHING could have a carbon date.

That's because the Earth is really billions of years old

11 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

That's because the Earth is really billions of years old

Thanks.

But I'm not on Yeet's team.