Are Young Earth Creationist stupid?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't believe that you are homophobic or anti-gay.

You and I just have different "reasoning" of biblical strictures. I have no problem with that. I just wanted to share with you my understanding of the matter.

How did this turn into a homosexual thread?

Farther down here is a whole forum for sexual minorities.

As for old books, they are good for a laugh sometimes, and sometimes hold jems of overlooked knowledge.

I will take Astro-Geology for $1000 Alex.

The Universe is at least fifteen billion years old, perhaps much older.

Earth is less than five billion years old, and life less than a billion.

A single Creation is going to take a lot of explaining.

Early Modern Humans have only been found to exist for the last 125,000 years.

We have not found a proto human.

However, they did mate with Neanderthal at that time, so same species, and comparing genomes, we find a common ancestor from 600,000 years ago. That is all the evidence we have on about a half million years of being something.

Early Modern Human artifacts start showing up about 50,000 years ago. Also evidence that the human gene pool split, and only one branch had Neanderthal DNA.

All of the fossils show that Earth was covered in shallow seas, and skipping a cause, the land broke up and floated around?

The Earth had a crust, slag, from when it was molten, but four fifths of that crust is missing.

It was all there when dinosaurs ruled, worldwide shallow seas.

Dinosaurs and four fifths of the crust vanish, and there is no sediment in the Atlantic Basin older than sixty-five million years.

There are gaps in the fossil record that do not show a gradual change, but we only have one fifth of the original crust. New species do appear, suddenly, but could have had origin in the missing pieces.

Nine times in the last billion years almost all life has been killed, which seems sloppy creation, an eraser?

No creation story covers the facts. The Earth is a work in progress.

Okay, this thread now needs a series of "Your Government LIES!! Dinosaurs Still Exist!!" videos... BECAUSE IT PUTS TO QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THOSE "FOSSILS™" ARE ACTUALLY AS OLD™ AS CLAIMED BY MAIN-STREAM™ EVOLUTIONIST™ SCIENCE™ ! (...because bones™ should 'decay'™ & be basically indistinguishable from the rest of the rocks [I have crushed bones with rocks & burnt everything up in a fire & have difficulty being able to believe that bones can last for millions of years without bio-degration] short of Frozen-Temperature-Preservation)








I now need some Creationist™-claims™ so that I can respond with "Your Church LIES to you !" videos...

Bones do decay, although more slowly than flesh. Your mistake is in thinking that freezing is the only environmental way for them to be preserved. Tar, for example, is impermeable and more or less encases (and soaks into) the remains as seen in the LaBrea tar pits.

The other factor is that fossils are not necessarily undecayed bone. The original bone or other remains (I'm including plants) may be entirely gone but was replaced over time with other minerals so the form is preserved.

Then again you may not have been serious with this post. It's hard to tell.

I am always serious about questioning everything; I just don't take myself seriously.

One of the first things that comes to mind, regarding tar, has to do with...: Pot-Holes in the Streets

...then I have to ask if tar comes in any kinds of various forms & qualities ?
Like are certain types of tars like certain types of metals that have better "grades" than other tar ?

I can see clearly that roads (made of tar) deteriorate from being weathered (within only a few years of of wear & tear let alone millions of years), and certainly don't seem to be preserving their form any better than an average rock, and I've even seen a lightning-bolt (in-person at that) strike a hole into a tar-road not too far away from where I was (less than 100 feet away), although I do have a pressure-cooker, but I use it because I like eating bones but need the pressure-cooker to make some of those bones brittle enough to be edible (for some reason eating bones & marrow seems to be really good for my health to the point where I don't even need to take supplements for my hypo-thyroidism if I've just eaten a few bones first for the day).

Anyway, knowing that I have a pressure-cooker, and knowing that pressure can create heat, and also knowing that any fossils that were dug up would had have to have been crushed under a bunch of pressure, can you grant me any experiments that I can personally try for myself regarding bones & its preservation that won't destroy my pressure-cooker ? Actually, I could probably just order another one for non-cooking purposes, like, I am not willing to eat tar after all.

The few that I've known that actually admitted to it were anything but stupid. They hang on to their religious beliefs very tightly, though.

The asphalt used for roads is mixed with quite a lot of rock fragments and also spread very thin across a large surface. This exposes it to far more weathering than pure (comparatively) tar in a deep pit.




A pressure cooker is not for preserving bones but rather for leaching materials out of them (I make bone broth in a pressure cooker too). The thing is, it sounds like you have noticed that there are a number of conditions that can destroy bones and then concluded that therefore bones won't be preserved (except for in the conditions you are familiar with seeing them preserved- your freezer). Just because you are able to destroy bones at home does not therefore mean that anything that seems superficially similar will also destroy bones. Just as you can't equate a highway to a tar pit just because they both have tar, you can't equate a pressure cooker to the earth just because they both subject materials to greater than atmospheric pressure.

Does that mean that there are no scientific™-experiments in existence that allow us to mimick the conditions for producing fossils ? Also, I find that bones can and do in fact, become very brittle when subjected to both heat and pressure, not to mention that if bones and such had been buried underneath a bunch of dirt, then surely there would be various micro-organisms that would chew/bio-degrade/digest anything biological, such as bones that those bones should become brittle from all of that "composting" effect ?

I must admit that I haven't really tried sticking bones into a compost-pile, but closing my eyes and "asking the universe" for answers as to how bones could possibly be preserved for a long-term duration, the main thing (with a few vague things in the back-ground) that my "psychic-mind" is "receiving" is the idea that soft "clay" wraps around these bones followed by the clay itself hardening, but clay itself should also become brittle over time, too, should it not ?

Okay, nevermind, the "mental-impression" I'm now getting is pointing me towards the Clay-Pot Heater that I made a few months ago & how I can raise it to high temperatures without the clay melting, although it could still crack with impact. Now I can only guess that these animals getting stuck in a bunch of clay might be similar to how we have such things as cement or quick-drying cement that they somehow found themselves trapped in (like flies/insects getting stuck onto fly-paper). That still brings me to another question though:

What kinds of (weather-)conditions would be required of these creatures to somehow roam around in such a manner that they would get stuck in these clay pools ? Active sink-holes ? Flooding I suppose could be another one. Assuming of course that these clay-pits weren't just traps created by aliens to capture a variety of strange earth-species for their DNA (talk about weather & controlling it reminds me of weather-control technology & words like HAARP but I'll ignore that part for now).

(Sigh)
The video of what-ever-it-was jumping out of the water in the distance could be anything. It could be a shark with something in it's mouth for all we know. Doesn't make it a dinosaur.
I'm familiar with the mammoth footage, and by all indication, it was actually CGI footage taken from a Discovery Channel documentary.
The rotting thing caught in the Japanese fishing boat net, from what I've heard, was probably some species of shark. The thing is, dead, decaying animals can look very different from when they were alive and complete. Case in point: a few years ago, there was talk about the Montock Monster, which was an unidentifiable decaying animal carcass that had washed ashore in New York state. After all the weird conspiracy theories about genetically altered animals escaping from government facilities, it was later determined the thing was just a dead raccoon.
As far as the Vladamir Putin secret video of the running dinosaur is concerned: the footage was dark and blurry. Chances are, it was an ostrich or related land bound bird.
That creationist hack showing a slide show of primitive art to prove that dinosaurs walked with humans? Primitive art is more often than not filled with mythological imagery, and should not be taken as representations of life. That kook can show as many slides as he likes, and explain his preconceived conclusions with them, but it all means nothing as long as there is no physical dinosaur remains dating into human times. And I wouldn't believe anything that those hucksters say, as they have an awful record when it comes to graft and theft.
And the alleged flying prehistoric reptile footage? The animal was far in the distance, and so genuine identification is doubtful. Doesn't make it a dinosaur.
As a matter of fact, there are dinosaurs still alive. They're all around us. They're called birds.

A good point. Hardly anything makes it to fossil.

Sink holes, being picked up in a flood and buried in stream sediments, falling into muddy water where it slows down and deposits silt.

Take the Great Plains, some fossil beds that were waterholes, pothole lakes, a slow sinkhole that held water, where the dead sank. Some trapped bones for millions of years. Organic, acid, mud, the living walking on the dead, lots of fossils survived.

The Bison, 90,000,000 in 1860, likely as many going back before the ice age, are rarely found as fresh bones or fossils.

Most fossils are replacement casts. Petrified wood is mostly agate, silica that just took the pattern. The same for clam shells, nothing left but a flint replacement. Wood mostly takes volcanic ash deposits or being buried in a swamp.

There were a lot more trees and plants than animals, fossils are still rare. Fossils in coal beds are coal, only an outline is left.

The same in stone, Petrified, turned to stone. The only bone cell structure is in silica replacement. No DNA.

Layered platy sediments, fine silt, regular deposits, under water, are the best fossil traps. It can be siltstone, or if heated, slate. the fossil is nothing more than a stain.

In most places digging down will show no trace of the billion years of life. Bio active life has recycled it all into a dark stain in the dirt.

Microscopic life makes up most marine sedimentary rock, and makes it easy to date.

That fresh looking Mammoth discovery most likely fell through ice covered in snow, and down into a acid peat bog. Sometimes skin and hair are preserved. They are pickled.

Miles of the Earth's surface have eroded. Granit Plutons now mountains, were formed miles underground, and everything above eroded away.

Not much record to start with, a lot lost.

But, quite a few things are in pristine condition deep in the bog lands.

What co-ordinate ? Are they in locations that I may visit in order to personally see this for myself or have these areas been restricted to keep the public out ? Are those things that are within the bog-lands pristine due to being freshly planted/deposited into the area or could something else have occurred (like a dumping-ground of genetic-experiments for time-travelers) ? Are satellite-images or is a satellite-camera available to view these bogs in high-quality images ?

(Speaking of high-quality images that reminds me of how some sources have questioned why so many high-definition quality images of Mars exist but photos of the moon which is supposed to be much closer to Mars are mostly of vague or blurry or blurred images...)

Must be aliens...


Speaking of CGI, I view "news" stories these days as being full of CGI, and I recently re-played some footage of news-footage of a plane hitting the WTC building, and cannot help but to wonder why the shape of that plane looks like it's been CGI'd into the footage, not to mention that it didn't even have the silhouette of an actual passenger-plane (more like some stock-shape plane or perhaps a missile shaped like an air-craft), because I used to travel around the world (12x altogether) ever since I was at a young age (starting at like 2 or 4), and I even drew a lot of aero-planes due to my former-fascination with flight & once wanting to have been a pilot before. Passenger-planes always have those turbine-engines underneath the wings (the big passenger-jets like 747s), I have seen them for myself while on these planes, and have even drawn pictures of planes during those childhood/teenage-years, and even a few into adult-life.

Do you remember from which source said it was a shark-species ? Who were the people that determined that this "Montock Monster" was a dead racoon ? This is my first encounter with hearing about any "Montock Monster" (considering that I'm not particularly interested in crypto-zoology) but I will look into it since I'm always suspicious of everything (like was this carcass planted there as some sort of hoax from some sort of operation to waste the time & resources of researchers or was it a case of someone who thought they had a scientific-mind but was really an amateur or was it someone with impeccable-credentials handing said carcass to some dubious groups for inspection, etc).

Nocturnal-birds. Who'd'a-thunk. I actually also recall some years (perhaps a decade or two ago) back that there were species/creatures found by scientists that lived in boiling-temperature conditions (too long ago for me to recall so my apologies if my memory is sketchy), they lived within like volcanic magma or something, or actually, more like near it within the ocean-waters, within the boiling-temperature-water (if I'm recalling any of this information correctly... trying to pull out the details from the cob-webs of my memory). Supposèdly some hearsay I remember is that humans have still not yet discovered even 97% of all of the creatures that exist on earth (and in the oceans), and some may have already gone extinct during our life-time, whilst others may be still-evolving (but as a "Nutty Conspiracy-Theorist"™ I'm going to have to go with: could be that aliens are genetically-engineering a bunch of different creatures/species & releasing it into this planetarium for various purposes, such as being gardeners, others of them doing it as weird science™-experiments, etc ).

I agree that I found it disappointing to look at the main channel & saw that it was somewhat bible-oriented.

I used to have a lot of interest in birds, and when I was younger, the first report/research I ever did on birds was on the Scarlet-Tanager, although I mis-read it at the time as a Scarlet-Tangler, due to being an un(der-)developed youth and all. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake somewhat re-sparked my interest in birds with his research & theories on animal-communication (particularly amongst parrots who seem to be able to speak & understand language & actually respond & hold logical-conversations & dialogue with humans in a coherent-manner).

How are we going to categorise animals that "evolve" enough to the point where they can actually start communicating with humans ? Like, humans are classified as Homo-Sapiens, will "Sapien" also be added into their Families of categories if such a thing (animals communicating in human-languages coherently) were to become common-place ?

Don't. Just don't.

9/11 may have been a TV event for you but for everyone who was in Manhattan right then, the planes going into the buildings was something they actually saw.

Or do you think the people of New York were in on a conspiracy?

Ban-Dodger-

I'm afraid I don't recall specifically the source that had finally identified the Montock Monster, but I do recall the source as credible.
As for the carcass itself - it had actually made the national news a few years back, believe it or not.

It was just in the news this week that females in an endangered species of shark were found to have produced offspring without mating. Hmmmmm....

I wonder what might cause that, especially in an endangered species. Hmmmmmm.....

The cells must just have woken up one day and said "Quick! We've got to find a way to propagate the species. You, from one shark, and you from another shark, do it NOW! And get it right, for Pete's sake - we can't afford to fail!"