Re: An expanding Earth?

[Mr.Dunsapy]

>
> >> > > There's no evidence for a recent global flood or for intelligent
> >> > > design, at least no evidence that would convince me, but I could still
> >> > > give a clear and accurate account of the evidence offered by the
> >> > > supporters of those ideas, an account that they would recognize as
> >> > > their own.
> >> >
> >> > Of course there is. Mammoths, with food still in their teeth, frozen.
>
> They just got stuck in a peat bog and couldn't escape. There's no
> reason to invoke a world-wide flood to explain this. There's a
> chapter on frozen mammoths and why they don't provide evidence for a
> flood in the creationist book _Origin by Design_ by Harold Coffin et
> al.
>
> > Masses of bones all over the world swept into  certain ares. areas.
>
> More often, fossil remains are fragmentary and don't fit with the
> preservational potential of a global flood.


Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found.
Also the fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously. Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood.


> > Also the scientist attributed , this to many ices ages , but that idea is changing also.
>
> Cite?

For example, the scientists say that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by glaciers during a series of ice ages. But ice evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. So it is possible that, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.

“They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor".

Scientific American, May 1960, p. 71.





>
>

> >> >
> >> > How do you know?  Bill there is nothing in 'evolution' that makes sense with the evidence we have.
>
> What parts of evolution don't make sense?

What parts do?

>
> >Because the scientists don't even look for ID
>
> How should we go about looking for ID?


>
> Evolutionists never say "it just happened." I think you've been
> corrected on this point several times, but you continue to repeat it.

Well then they must agree that it took ID. So why then do they not say that?
You do know that they also say there is is no 'evolution' in the origins of life.

>
>
> >> > > That's OK. But you should stop with the "there's no evidence for
> >> > > evolution" line, and just say that there's no evidence for evolution
> >> > > that could possibly convince you.
> >> >
> >> > It is more than that.There is no possibility. It is impossible.
>
> What gave you that idea?
>
> > The scientists know that. That is why they come up with ideas , that earth was seeded, or Aliens , or something like that.
>
> Most scientists don't invoke these ideas, or anything like them.


>
> >Because they know they could never prove it. And they tell me that. DNA really killed any idea of life just happeneing and 'evolution'.
> >>
> >> The short answer is that you are utterly incapable of summarizing the
> >> evidence in support of evolution in any detail. That's obvious to me
> >> and to anyone reading your posts. And you grossly and dishonestly
> >> mis=represent what scientists think about evolution and the origin of
> >> life. It's such a waste. You have a perfectly good religion and you
> >> make it look bad by coming here and making lazy and dishonest
> >> arguments.
> >Actually I did that in a earlier post.
>
> So you admit that you were lazy and dishonest? :-)
>
> > I know what the scientists say. But if you look into what they say they do not have any answers. Other than to say a billionsyearsdidit.
>
> No one does this. Billionsofyearsdidit is not the question-ending
> reply that goddidit is. Scientists want to know why and how things
> happened. So instead of saying "billionsofyearsdidit" and giving up,
> scientists continue to do research on the matter, the opposite of the
> effect of just saying "goddidit."
>
> >Not very scientific. And as Dawkins say it happened, and it is like winning multiple lotteries.
>
> How so? Do you have a citation for this?
>
> >What the scientists have is faith that in the future they will get the answers.
>
> We have plenty of evidence for evolution. No "faith" is necessary to
> accept this.

You will have to support that with evidence.

[Bill]

On May 16, 12:52 pm, "Mr.Dunsapy" <duns...@gmail.com> wrote:
"just happened"

What exactly do you mean when you say that something "just happened"?
From your tone, you seem to mean that the thing happened for no
particular reason.

That is certainly not what scientists claim about the origin of life.

If, instead of saying that scientists claim life "just happened," you
said scientists claim that life "developed according to natural laws
of physics and chemistry without the intervention of a supernatural
designer", then I'd say you were paraphrasing the scientists
correctly.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:52:55 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Dunsapy"
<dun...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>>
>> >> > > There's no evidence for a recent global flood or for intelligent
>> >> > > design, at least no evidence that would convince me, but I could still
>> >> > > give a clear and accurate account of the evidence offered by the
>> >> > > supporters of those ideas, an account that they would recognize as
>> >> > > their own.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course there is. Mammoths, with food still in their teeth, frozen.
>>
>> They just got stuck in a peat bog and couldn't escape. There's no
>> reason to invoke a world-wide flood to explain this. There's a
>> chapter on frozen mammoths and why they don't provide evidence for a
>> flood in the creationist book _Origin by Design_ by Harold Coffin et
>> al.
>>
>> > Masses of bones all over the world swept into  certain ares. areas.
>>
>> More often, fossil remains are fragmentary and don't fit with the
>> preservational potential of a global flood.
>
>
> Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses

Why are you focussing on rhinoceroses now as well? Are they the only
things your quote mines mention?

> have been found in different parts of the earth.

Catastrophic deposition undoubedly preserved many fossils. But for
others, only bits and pieces of skeletons are found, pointing to long
periods of time between death and burial, which the idea of a
catastrophic flood would not explain well.

> Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice. In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly.

Right. They suddenly sank into a peat bog and were preserved. But if
the pre-flood world was warm and equable, what would they be doing
with arctic plants in their stomachs?

> It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found.

Yes, there are a lot of mammoth bones. But not many of these are of
the frozen mammoth variety.

>Also the fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.

Their ancient geographical distribution would not have to be the same
as today's, so their mixture does not call for a world-wide flood. If
there were such a flood, though, wouldn't we expect sea creatures to
be mixed in with the lions, tigers, etc.?

> Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood.

Only creationists would point to these finds like this. There is no
evidence for a world-wide flood.

>> > Also the scientist attributed , this to many ices ages , but that idea is changing also.
>>
>> Cite?
>
>For example, the scientists say that the surface of the earth has been shaped in many places by glaciers during a series of ice ages. But ice evidence of glacial activity can sometimes be the result of water action. So it is possible that, some of the evidence for the Flood is being misread as evidence of an ice age.
>
>“They were finding ice ages at every stage of the geologic history, in keeping with the philosophy of uniformity. Careful reexamination of the evidence in recent years, however, has rejected many of these ice ages; formations once identified as glacial moraines have been reinterpreted as beds laid down by mudflows, submarine landslides and turbidity currents: avalanches of turbid water that carry silt, sand and gravel out over the deep-ocean floor".
>
>Scientific American, May 1960, p. 71.

Not according to

http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/78/6/783

>> >> >
>> >> > How do you know?  Bill there is nothing in 'evolution' that makes sense with the evidence we have.
>>
>> What parts of evolution don't make sense?
>
>What parts do?

All of them.

>> >Because the scientists don't even look for ID
>>
>> How should we go about looking for ID?

In the natural world, by the way, not in religious contexts.

>> Evolutionists never say "it just happened." I think you've been
>> corrected on this point several times, but you continue to repeat it.
>
>Well then they must agree that it took ID.

No, just something more specific than 'it just happened."

> So why then do they not say that? You do know that they also say there is is no 'evolution' in the origins of life.

Right. If the origin of life were a chemical process, this would
leave out evolution, which is a biological process.

snip

>> How so? Do you have a citation for this?
>>
>> >What the scientists have is faith that in the future they will get the answers.
>>
>> We have plenty of evidence for evolution. No "faith" is necessary to
>> accept this.
>
>You will have to support that with evidence.

Transitional fossils found (not "gone missing" as you've previously
claimed), pseudogenes, nested hierarchies, vestigial structures, and
creatures being more similar to each other than they have to be in
order to survive.