Christian Forums

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon May 11, 2020 - 11:53:36
And denying that it is a fact that politics can influence scientific studies is wrong.

+1

Out of young grasshoppers mouth much truth is spoken.

Quote from: Rella on Sun May 17, 2020 - 08:06:28
While this could be seen as a laughable statement....

   

Actually it is a really pathetic statement, particularly if anyone actually believed it.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 17, 2020 - 09:39:43
   

Actually it is a really pathetic statement, particularly if anyone actually believed it.

This one really took me back also, in my experience it has always been liberals that are pushing new age agendas that are contrary to our constitutions rather than preserve the values that were instituted by our founding fathers.

Quote from: Alan on Sun May 17, 2020 - 09:54:21

This one really took me back also, in my experience it has always been liberals that are pushing new age agendas that are contrary to our constitutions rather than preserve the values that were instituted by our founding fathers.

No one that says this is libertarian.  They are either Progs, Dems, or Socialists.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 17, 2020 - 05:45:19
You must be using a different version of the Bible than I.  None of the versions that I study from say anything at all about the ice ages.

You brought up ice ages, not me. Nevertheless -

Job 38:1  Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;....................................
29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.......................

Psa 147:1 Praise ye the LORD: for it is good to sing praises unto our God; for it is pleasant; and praise is comely. 2 The LORD doth build up Jerusalem: he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. 3 He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds. 4 He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. 5 Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. 6 The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground. 7 Sing unto the LORD with thanksgiving; sing praise upon the harp unto our God: 8 Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains. 9 He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. 10 He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. 11 The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy. 12 Praise the LORD, O Jerusalem; praise thy God, O Zion. 13 For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath blessed thy children within thee. 14 He maketh peace in thy borders, and filleth thee with the finest of the wheat. 15 He sendeth forth his commandment upon earth: his word runneth very swiftly. 16 He giveth snow like wool: he scattereth the hoarfrost like ashes. 17 He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold? 18 He sendeth out his word, and melteth them: he causeth his wind to blow, and the waters flow. 19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. 20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

If you were not trapped within the box of your own creation limiting your understanding to the false theory of evolution and deep time scenarios, you would not be deceived regarding time and the rapid formation of things you think take deep time to be formed. Nothing can be done for those who choose to limit their understanding to that only which they can presently observe, determining the past from the same, rather than the testimony of God's word regarding the same. God knows exactly what happened in the past, and shared that knowledge with His prophets who have recored that testimony for us. You simply have more faith in your own or others observations according to what they now see, in determining what really happened in the past. So be it.

https://www.icr.org/article/4777/272

QuoteGlaciers Can Melt in a 'Geologic Instant'

Many geological processes can happen much more quickly than is conventionally thought. For instance, mainstream science believes that coal, diamonds, and oil require vast amounts of time to develop, when they in fact can form in under a year.1, 2 Sedimentary rock and fossil formation require only days or months in the right conditions.3 And broad tectonic plate movements could have (and indeed must have) happened in under a year.4

Now the rapid melt-back of glaciers can be added to the list. University of Buffalo geologist Jason Briner found that certain glaciers "exhibit rapid fluctuations in speed and position." He and his team based their estimate on rock samples taken from a fjord that drained North American ice sheets. Briner said in a UB press release that "the lion's share of the retreat occurred in a geologic instant―probably within as little as a few hundred years."5

Rapid melting contrasts with the standard evolutionary story, which holds that the most recent Ice Age experienced melt-back between 20,000 and 5,000 years ago. Evolutionary glaciologists interpret certain debris layering patterns as indicating glacier melting and re-growth that occurred over thousands of years. Creation researchers have instead interpreted these same features as evidence of annual melt-back episodes. If glaciers can melt rapidly, then the longstanding creation explanation is more feasible than the evolutionary one.

Briner's observations confirm creationist Ice Age studies. It is most reasonable, given the Bible's history, that there was a single Ice Age, and that the largest extent of ice lasted for only hundreds of years, beginning around 2400 BC. It is possible that the period of time wherein the "lion's share" of melting apparently occurred was the only time that it occurred. The remaining thousands of years would therefore be a product not of data, but of the assumption of deep time.

As in the rapid formation of coal, oil, and mud rocks, if the conditions are right, icebergs melt fast—just like the creation model holds.6

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/08/receding-swiss-glaciers-incoveniently-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-and-make-it-clear-that-glacier-retreat-is-nothing-new/

Article below from link above, emphasis is mine.

QuoteReceding Swiss glaciers incoveniently reveal 4000 year old forests – and make it clear that glacier retreat is nothing new

Dr. Christian Schlüchter's discovery of 4,000-year-old chunks of wood at the leading edge of a Swiss glacier was clearly not cheered by many members of the global warming doom-and-gloom science orthodoxy.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with "a wild landscape and wide flowing river."

Dr. Schlüchter's report might have been more conveniently dismissed by the entrenched global warming establishment were it not for his distinguished reputation as a giant in the field of geology and paleoclimatology who has authored/coauthored more than 250 papers and is a professor emeritus at the University of Bern in Switzerland.

Then he made himself even more unpopular thanks to a recent interview titled "Our Society is Fundamentally Dishonest" which appeared in the Swiss publication Der Bund where he criticized the U.N.-dominated institutional climate science hierarchy for extreme tunnel vision and political contamination.

Following the ancient forest evidence discovery Schlüchter became a target of scorn. As he observes in the interview, "I wasn't supposed to find that chunk of wood because I didn't belong to the close-knit circle of Holocene and climate researchers. My findings thus caught many experts off guard: Now an 'amateur' had found something that the [more recent time-focused] Holocene and climate experts should have found."

Other evidence exists that there is really nothing new about dramatic glacier advances and retreats. In fact the Alps were nearly glacier-free again about 2,000 years ago. Schlüchter points out that "the forest line was much higher than it is today; there were hardly any glaciers. Nowhere in the detailed travel accounts from Roman times are glaciers mentioned."

Schlüchter criticizes his critics for focusing on a time period which is "indeed too short." His studies and analyses of a Rhone glacier area reveal that "the rock surface had [previously] been ice-free 5,800 of the last 10,000 years."

On Pierre Gosselin's "No Tricks Zone" we have this:

Distinct solar imprint on climate

What's more worrisome, Schlüchter's findings show that cold periods can strike very rapidly. Near the edge of Mont Miné Glacier his team found huge tree trunks and discovered that they all had died in just a single year. The scientists were stunned.

The year of death could be determined to be exactly 8195 years before present. The oxygen isotopes in the Greenland ice show there was a marked cooling around 8200."

That finding, Schlüchter states, confirmed that the sun is the main driver in climate change.

Today's "rapid" changes are nothing new

In the interview he casts doubt on the UN projection that the Alps will be almost glacier-free by 2100, reminding us that "the system is extremely dynamic and doesn't function linearly" and that "extreme, sudden changes have clearly been seen in the past". History's record is unequivocal on this.

Schlüchter also doesn't view today's climate warming as anything unusual, and poses a number of unanswered questions:

Why did the glaciers retreat in the middle of the 19th century, although the large CO2 increase in the atmosphere came later? Why did the earth 'tip' in such a short time into a warming phase? Why did glaciers again advance in 1880s, 1920s and 1980s? [...] Sooner or later climate science will have to answer the question why the retreat of the glacier at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850 was so rapid."

On science: "Our society is fundamentally dishonest"

CO2 fails to answer many open questions. Already we get the sense that hockey stick climate claims are turning out to be rather sorrowful and unimaginative wives' tales. He summarizes on the refusal to acknowledge the reality of our past: "Our society in fundamentally dishonest".

Rapid formation and melting of glaciers is a norm. This even apart from the very rapid formation and or melting which would have no doubt occurred as a result of the global flood which rapidly completely changed the surface of this earth. Destroying all deep time scenarios based upon all things remaining relatively the same during deep ages.

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-greenland-shrunken-ice-sheet-weve.html

Article below from link above, emphasis is mine.

QuoteGreenland's shrunken ice sheet: We've been here before

Think Greenland's ice sheet is small today? It was smaller—as small as it has ever been in recent history—from 3-5,000 years ago, according to scientists who studied the ice sheet's history using a new technique they developed for interpreting the Arctic fossil record.

"What's really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago," said Jason Briner, PhD, University at Buffalo associate professor of geology, who led the study.

"What it tells us is that the ice sheets might really respond to ocean temperatures," he said. "It's a clue to what might happen in the future as the Earth continues to warm."

The findings appeared online on Nov. 22 in the journal Geology. Briner's team included Darrell Kaufman, an organic geochemist from Northern Arizona University; Ole Bennike, a clam taxonomist from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland; and Matthew Kosnik, a statistician from Australia's Macquarie University.

The study is important not only for illuminating the history of Greenland's ice sheet, but for providing geologists with an important new tool: A method of using Arctic fossils to deduce when glaciers were smaller than they are today.

Scientists have many techniques for figuring out when ice sheets were larger, but few for the opposite scenario.

"Traditional approaches have a difficult time identifying when ice sheets were smaller," Briner said. "The outcome of our work is that we now have a tool that allows us to see how the ice sheet responded to past times that were as warm or warmer than present—times analogous to today and the near future."

The technique the scientists developed involves dating fossils in piles of debris found at the edge of glaciers.

To elaborate: Growing ice sheets are like bulldozers, pushing rocks, boulders and other detritus into heaps of rubble called moraines.

Because glaciers only do this plowing when they're getting bigger, logic dictates that rocks or fossils found in a moraine must have been scooped up at a time when the associated glacier was older and smaller.

So if a moraine contains fossils from 3,000 years ago, that means the glacier was growing—and smaller than it is today—3,000 years ago.

This is exactly what the scientists saw in Greenland: They looked at 250 ancient clams from moraines in three western regions, and discovered that most of the fossils were between 3-5,000 years old.

The finding suggests that this was the period when the ice sheet's western extent was at its smallest in recent history, Briner said.

"Because we see the most shells dating to the 5-3000-year period, we think that this is when the most land was ice-free, when large layers of mud and fossils were allowed to accumulate before the glacier came and bulldozed them up," he said.

Because radiocarbon dating is expensive, Briner and his colleagues found another way to trace the age of their fossils.

Their solution was to look at the structure of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—in the fossils of ancient clams. Amino acids come in two orientations that are mirror images of each other, known as D and L, and living organisms generally keep their amino acids in an L configuration.

When organisms die, however, the amino acids begin to flip. In dead clams, for example, D forms of aspartic acid start turning to L's.

Because this shift takes place slowly over time, the ratio of D's to L's in a fossil is a giveaway of its age.

Knowing this, Briner's research team matched D and L ratios in 20 Arctic clamshells to their radiocarbon-dated ages to generate a scale showing which ratios corresponded with which ages. The researchers then looked at the D and L ratios of aspartic acid in the 250 Greenland clamshells to come up with the fossils' ages.

Amino acid dating is not new, but applying it to the study of glaciers could help scientists better understand the history of ice—and climate change—on Earth.

No surprise to a creationist, that glaciers were expanding 3-5 thousand years ago, and temperatures were warmer up to 4 thousand years ago. This fits nicely into the biblical time frame concerning the global flood and aftermath. So does the accumulation of large mud layers filled with fossils mentioned above, which creationists contend to be the result of said biblically recorded flood. Of course ignoring all such evidence is supporting the same is the norm. of the day among the majority of so called "scientists".

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 23, 2020 - 09:35:09
You brought up ice ages, not me. Nevertheless -

No Amo, you brought up ice ages in your reply #354 with your reference to that really stupid youtube article.  Nervertheless - your interpretation of the passages in Job and Psalms as describing ice ages is really funny because without the scientific identification and description to the actual occurrences of ice ages, you could never construe those passages of ever suggesting anything more than the occurrences of snow and ice as experienced by people of that day for example the conditions on Mount Ararat and other middle eastern countries. Even Israel experiences snow and ice on occasions.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 24, 2020 - 05:36:09
No Amo, you brought up ice ages in your reply #354 with your reference to that really stupid youtube article.  Nervertheless - your interpretation of the passages in Job and Psalms as describing ice ages is really funny because without the scientific identification and description to the actual occurrences of ice ages, you could never construe those passages of ever suggesting anything more than the occurrences of snow and ice as experienced by people of that day for example the conditions on Mount Ararat and other middle eastern countries. Even Israel experiences snow and ice on occasions.

Same old crap, you reject the bibles very conclusive statement that there was a global flood which destroyed this world as it was, as the apostle Peter testified mockers did even in his day, and therefore any scientific research or data that supports the same. I am aware the bible does not address ice ages, this is of course because the construct of the theories pertaining to the same, are of fallen human speculation concerning a completely false deep time narrative. The ice and glaciers formed rapidly after the flood, and have expanded and or decreased several times since, recently as your own scientists have begun to testify. They simply will not consider the implications regarding biblically recorded history because they like you have rejected that narrative.

I was not referring to ice ages regarding that which you find laughable knowing that the scriptures do not directly address them. I was referring to the global flood which I know you reject, which as I see it, is responsible for glaciers and the large amounts of ice we see presently and in the recent past. My bad, communication breakdown. The scriptures do not address ice ages because there were none, at least not in the deep time sense portrayed by the scoffers of these days. I should have elaborated in my response which you responded to, and or understood that you were probably addressing ice ages rather than the flood. Nevertheless God is and has been in control of how much ice and snow have and will continue to be on this planet. It serves His purposes as does everything else. As the bible has predicted, major changes are and will continue to take place on this planet according to God's will and timing. None but Christ will save anyone from the sometimes dire effects of the same. So be it. Come Lord Jesus.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 24, 2020 - 09:41:19Same old crap...

From you -- most definitely.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 24, 2020 - 14:02:22
From you -- most definitely.

Yes, our feelings about each others views are mutual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8BqXrBzgVY

Good video addressing some problems with carbon dating, and an apparent change in the earths environment as the scriptures testify of. Among other things.

Quote from: Amo on Mon May 25, 2020 - 08:41:24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8BqXrBzgVY

Good video addressing some problems with carbon dating, and an apparent change in the earths environment as the scriptures testify of. Among other things.

Perhaps I misunderstood what was said there.  However, it seems to me that the speaker there has made two over-arching assumptions that can not be verified either scripturally or scientifically.  Those are that (1) the flood was a world wide flood and (2) the physics of the universe was altered by the flood.  The first is simply a matter of interpretation.  The second  is against basic physics that radioactive decay somehow changed.

Quote from: Amo on Mon May 25, 2020 - 08:39:50
Yes, our feelings about each others views are mutual.

Yes but mine are scientifically sound and within tolerable scriptural interpretation.  Yours are within tolerable scriptural interpretation but are clearly unsound scientifically.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 25, 2020 - 09:20:48
Perhaps I misunderstood what was said there.  However, it seems to me that the speaker there has made two over-arching assumptions that can not be verified either scripturally or scientifically.  Those are that (1) the flood was a world wide flood and (2) the physics of the universe was altered by the flood.  The first is simply a matter of interpretation.  The second  is against basic physics that radioactive decay somehow changed.

Yes I know, your mind is limited to only that which you can presently see. This is where your faith lies, no pun intended. You interpret scripture according to this present world, rather than this present world according to scripture. So be it. Denying what the scriptures plainly state which prophets, apostles and even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ testified to regarding the flood, will never make such denial so. God is not subject to physics, all is subject to Him. Nor are your or any others present thoughts about physics or anything else for that matter, the facts of the matter concerning anything. You are subject to the word of God, deny it now if you wish, but in the end you will find that you are and always have been subject to the same. The word of God never has been nor will ever be subject to the vain imaginings of any man including yourself.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Luk 17:26  And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

I know you think you know better than the Apostle Peter, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who was verily God, many of us simply have more faith in them than you.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 25, 2020 - 09:25:21
Yes but mine are scientifically sound and within tolerable scriptural interpretation.  Yours are within tolerable scriptural interpretation but are clearly unsound scientifically.

Says the one with undying faith in a theory which has continuously proved its own assumptions wrong time and again over and over. So be it.

Quote from: Amo on Mon May 25, 2020 - 10:20:07
Says the one with undying faith in a theory which has continuously proved its own assumptions wrong time and again over and over. So be it.

When did this revelation occur? I must have missed that. 

Quote from: Amo on Mon May 25, 2020 - 10:20:07Says the one with undying faith in a theory which has continuously proved its own assumptions wrong time and again over and over. So be it.

How many times will you insist on demonstrating your absolute ignorance of all things science and scientific?  Apparently as many times as you write or speak.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 25, 2020 - 09:20:48The second  is against basic physics that radioactive decay somehow changed.

The problem with the assumption that radioactive decay was much faster in the past is that it would have caused huge increases in the amount of ionizing radiation on the Earth.    Which would have been lethal for all living things.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat May 30, 2020 - 08:22:19The problem with the assumption that radioactive decay was much faster in the past is that it would have caused huge increases in the amount of ionizing radiation on the Earth.    Which would have been lethal for all living things.

And that is but one of the problems with that assumption.

Quote from: Alan on Mon May 25, 2020 - 11:12:47
When did this revelation occur? I must have missed that. 

Yes apparently you have. I have posted one link after another many times over on these boards with evolutionist "scientists" correcting previous assumptions due to new evidence refuting the same. As is obvious, things which need to be corrected, are wrong.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2020 - 16:31:20
Yes apparently you have. I have posted one link after another many times over on these boards with evolutionist "scientists" correcting previous assumptions due to new evidence refuting the same. As is obvious, things which need to be corrected, are wrong.

So it's "science" that proves your talking points? You're such a hypocrite.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 25, 2020 - 11:45:05
How many times will you insist on demonstrating your absolute ignorance of all things science and scientific?  Apparently as many times as you write or speak.

What do silly accusations and denial have to do with science? Using the adaptive and modifying nature of scientific discovery according to increased information, as an excuse for so many wrong assumptions previously passed off as absolute truth which only the ignorant would deny, is not very scientific at all. People whose scientific "theories" are filled with particulars that are subject to constant change according to increased information, should not pass their theories or the particulars of them, off as scientific fact. Such a course of action is truly worse than ignorance, and more in line with straight up deception. Your above accusation is as weak and unstable as your theory.

If you would admit of your own faith that your theory is true, rather than demanding it to be scientifically proved fact, there would not be so much harm in the assumptions of your faith being wrong so many times. Such is to be expected in ongoing scientific investigation in support of a theory. Such is certainly not to be expected in relation to established scientific fact. You think and declare that I am ignorant for pointing such out. I think and declare that only abject ignorance would deny the same. If so many assumptions concerning the particulars of a theory turn out to be so very wrong so many times, it certainly is not ignorant to begin to doubt such a theory. To the contrary, it would be ignorant to continue blind faith in the same, especially when continuing to suggest that said theory is scientific fact. So be it.

Quote from: Alan on Sat May 30, 2020 - 16:46:26

So it's "science" that proves your talking points? You're such a hypocrite.

Right. Quoting articles from scientists declaring that their previous assumptions were wrong, and pointing out therefore that they were wrong, makes me a hypocrite? Are you saying the "scientists" which admitted of such were not scientists, or simply that anyone who doesn't agree with your scientific point of view, can be scientific? The articles exist, I quote them and point out that they are an admittance of wrong assumptions. How is that hypocritical?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osf11LpJzg4

Good video on the importance of the creation account as historical narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMnjX-VgPMk

God video about the flood. Why Moses' version is the best, and why we can trust the bible in relation to science.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2020 - 16:57:32
What do silly accusations and denial have to do with science? Using the adaptive and modifying nature of scientific discovery according to increased information, as an excuse for so many wrong assumptions previously passed off as absolute truth which only the ignorant would deny, is not very scientific at all. People whose scientific "theories" are filled with particulars that are subject to constant change according to increased information, should not pass their theories or the particulars of them, off as scientific fact. Such a course of action is truly worse than ignorance, and more in line with straight up deception. Your above accusation is as weak and unstable as your theory.

That was in response to my question of

Quote from: 4WD on Mon May 25, 2020 - 11:45:05
How many times will you insist on demonstrating your absolute ignorance of all things science and scientific? 

Your answer is yet one more demonstration of your absolute ignorance of all things science and scientific. Thank you Amo. You have proven my point. I do enjoy it when that happens.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 30, 2020 - 17:03:30
Right. Quoting articles from scientists declaring that their previous assumptions were wrong, and pointing out therefore that they were wrong, makes me a hypocrite? Are you saying the "scientists" which admitted of such were not scientists, or simply that anyone who doesn't agree with your scientific point of view, can be scientific? The articles exist, I quote them and point out that they are an admittance of wrong assumptions. How is that hypocritical?

Again, you simply do not understand how science works and refuse to accept it's basic concept but it becomes even more of a circus when you attempt to berate real science with pseudo science.

I accept your faith but I do not accept some dude on YouTube attempting to disprove well documented scientific theory.

Please do tell us ignorant folk, oh lords of science 4WD and Alan, how science really works. In a way apparently which translates into, your views can never actually be wrong, even when they are admitted to have been wrong. Such a convenient type of science you have. Please do expound.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

The above link supplies more examples of scientists predictions and or understanding of what they observe just being simply wrong. It demonstrates the adaptive nature of science according to increased information if not simply time, which tests their theories and exposes their many errors. It also reveals their adaptive nature in saving face and their theories in the public eye. First we were headed for an unstoppable ice age, then global warming, after neither played out it was changed to simply climate change. So these scientists finally figured out through trial and error that which almost everyone has already known, climate changes. Their' dire predictions of destruction, and recommended courses of action to save us are nothing more than common sense to any creationist. Of course our actions effect us and the world around us.

Nevertheless, these scientists had nothing to do with our origins or correctly identifying the mechanisms of the same. Humanity while causing great harm to this world will neither destroy or save it. The one who created it as testified in scripture, has destroyed it once before, will destroy it once again, and alone can save any of us. Terrible things have, do, and will continue to happen and on an increasing level as scripture has testified. Salvation from the same for this world and every individual upon it, is in Christ alone. Self aggrandizing and delusional "scientists" will change nothing scripture has already determined concerning the past or the future. All of their proclamations which contradict any of the same, will be exposed in the end as the ignorant babbling of self proclaimed prophets truly detached from God who alone is the source of all authentic prophetic utterance.

Jer 23:19  Behold, a whirlwind of the LORD is gone forth in fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of the wicked. 20 The anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it perfectly. 21 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. 22 But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings. 23 Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? 24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. 25 I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. 26 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; 27 Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. 28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. 29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith. 32 Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 31, 2020 - 11:37:35
.....your views can never actually be wrong, even when they are admitted to have been wrong. Such a convenient type of science you have. Please do expound.

Again, please tell us when they have been admitted to being wrong.

Quote from: Alan on Fri Jun 05, 2020 - 17:50:04

Again, please tell us when they have been admitted to being wrong.

Key word I reckon would have to be admitted. We can and probably have all been wrong without ever admitting it. This much I will confess, if I have to correct a former position, that means it or something about it, was wrong. I hold the same to be true for others as well. I have supplied many articles by evolutionists addressing corrections of previous views especially regarding time issues. There are of course many many more out there.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-tectonic-plates-shifting-earlier-previously.html

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine, my comments in blue.

QuoteTectonic plates started shifting earlier than previously thought

An enduring question in geology is when Earth's tectonic plates began pushing and pulling in a process that helped the planet evolve and shaped its continents into the ones that exist today. Some researchers theorize it happened around four billion years ago, while others think it was closer to one billion.

A research team led by Harvard researchers looked for clues in ancient rocks (older than 3 billion years) from Australia and South Africa, and found that these plates were moving at least 3.2 billion years ago on the early Earth. In a portion of the Pilbra Craton in Western Australia, one of the oldest pieces of the Earth's crust, scientists found a latitudinal drift of about 2.5 centimeters a year, and dated the motion to 3.2 billion years ago.

The researchers believe this shift is the earliest proof that modern-like plate motion happened between two to four billion years ago. It adds to growing research that tectonic movement occurred on the early Earth. The findings are published in Science Advances.

Quote

Same old same old. Scientists of the deep time evolutionary faith, finding more and more of their presumed slow development of plant, animals, and this earth further and further back in time. This suggesting of course, that all such was probably here from the beginning as the bible testifies and creation scientists observe and theorize according to faith in said testimony.

God either created the movement of tectonic plates from the beginning, or they may be the result of the global flood and upheaval described in scripture. Both scenarios simply being rejected by those who prefer not to have God in the picture of their chosen faith. Their faith being in themselves over and above the testimony God has provided for us. So be it.   

Quote"Basically, this is one piece of geological evidence to extend the record of plate tectonics on Earth farther back in Earth history," said Alec Brenner, one of the paper's lead authors and a member Harvard's Paleomagnetics Lab. "Based on the evidence we found, it looks like plate tectonics is a much more likely process to have occurred on the early Earth and that argues for an Earth that looks a lot more similar to today's than a lot of people think."

Hmmmm. Depending upon just how similar they are suggesting, both creationists and evolutionists have thought that the world was very different in the past. As is obvious, some of these differences enabled it to support a much greater variety of living things than we now observe, and creatures of much larger size as well. The ever increasing evidence of such is hard to deny. Evolutionists of course continue further back in time to a point when there was virtually no life, while creationists maintain there was life from the beginning as testified in scripture. Both admitting of major changes according to their own time and event sequences.

There is of course the oft quoted scripture from Peter which comes to mind.

2 Pe 3:3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Until now I have tied this to evolutionists application of what they see now concerning atrophy, erosion, change, interaction and so on when it fits their chosen faith of course, to the past and deep past in contradiction to the testimony of God's word. Perhaps they are moving toward broadening the application of the above scriptures in reference to their tendencies.

QuotePlate tectonics is key to the evolution of life and the development of the planet. Today, the Earth's outer shell consists of about 15 rigid blocks of crust. On them sit the planet's continents and oceans. The movement of these plates shaped the location of the continents. It helped form new ones and it created unique landforms like mountain ranges. It also exposed new rocks to the atmosphere, which led to chemical reactions that stabilized Earth's surface temperature over billions of years. A stable climate is crucial to the evolution of life.

When the first shifts occurred has long been an issue of considerable debate in geology. Any information that sheds light on it is valuable. The study, published on Earth Day, helps fill in some of the gaps. It also loosely suggests the earliest forms of life developed in a more moderate environment.

More deep time presumption according to the evolutionary faith of course. A stable climate is crucial to life as we know it and can observe here today. Such places no limits however upon God, who could easily create life adaptable to rapidly changing climate and environment. It seems to me that even "Christian" evolutionists should be able to see the folly of observing and judging everything according to the limitations of the box we now exist within. Do they not at least see and understand that God and His other creations are not limited to the same, as scripture so often points out? Scripture even tells us that we will no longer be limited by the restraints of our present existence in the future either.

Earth's climate and environment were very stable from the very beginning according to God's creation in six days just as the scriptures testify. There was abundant life from the very beginning of much greater variety than today, and even much larger size than today the world over. This just as the scriptures and gobs of observable evidence suggests. The presumption of evolutionary deep time is what causes apparent contradictions concerning these latest reported observations, not scriptural testimony. To the contrary, the never ending trend of finding all things of the evolutionary faith to have transpired further and further back in time than they once thought, is simply the evidence suggesting over and again that it was all here from the beginning. A place those of the deep time evolutionary faith, simply choose not to go. So be it.

Quote"We're trying to understand the geophysical principles that drive the Earth," said Roger Fu, one of the paper's lead authors and an assistant professor of earth and planetary sciences in the Faculty of Arts and Science. "Plate tectonics cycles elements that are necessary for life into the Earth and out of it."

Plate tectonics helps planetary scientists understand worlds beyond this one, too.

"Currently, Earth is the only known planetary body that has robustly established plate tectonics of any kind," said Brenner, a third-year graduate student in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. "It really behooves us as we search for planets in other solar systems to understand the whole set of processes that led to plate tectonics on Earth and what driving forces transpired to initiate it. That hopefully would give us a sense of how easy it is for plate tectonics to happen on other worlds, especially given all the linkages between plate tectonics, the evolution of life and the stabilization of climate."

The supposed links between plate tectonics and evolution are nothing but the wild speculations of those of the evolutionary faith examining and seeing all according to said presumptive faith. The stated uniqueness of our planets tectonic plates is once again more suggestive of creation over evolution as the mechanism of our present existence. Our planet is very different than others we can observe. It occupies an exact time and place with unique qualities which all allow for our existence. These facts alone suggest design or purpose and place the odds against random chance. This is not to even mention the incomprehensible numbers involved when one starts adding the improbabilities of life we see today slowly developing over time according to one beneficial mutation after another trillions of times over. Thus making the theory of random chance evolution as many see it, unreasonably asinine. So be it.

QuoteFor the study, members of the project traveled to Pilbara Craton in Western Australia. A craton is a primordial, thick, and very stable piece of crust. They are usually found in the middle of tectonic plates and are the ancient hearts of the Earth's continents.

This makes them the natural place to go to study the early Earth. The Pilbara Craton stretches about 300 miles across, covering approximately the same area as the state of Pennsylvania. Rocks there formed as early as 3.5 billion years ago.

In 2017, Fu and Brenner took samples from a portion called the Honeyeater Basalt. They drilled into the rocks there and collected core samples about an inch wide.

They brought the samples back to Fu's lab in Cambridge, where they placed the samples into magnetometers and demagnetizing equipment. These instruments told them the rock's magnetic history. The oldest, most stable bit of that history is hopefully when the rock formed. In this case, it was 3.2 billion years ago. The team then used their data and data from other researchers, who've demagnetized rocks in nearby areas, to date when the rocks shifted from one point to another. They found a drift of 2.5 centimeters a year.

Ahhh. Now we see the reality of presumption upon presumption passed off as real science I suppose, simply because the "scientists" involved are of the evolutionary faith. The presumption of deep time, upon the presumption deep time development of the earth's crust, upon the presumption that a rock's magnetic history can be measured, upon the presumption that doing so "hopefully" tells these vain imaginers how long ago the rock formed, which is presumed to reveal how long ago earth's tectonic plates were moving. Just to mention a few of the presumptions involved. Oh yea, that is some real rock solid evolutionary science, if I've ever seen such. Which I have not.

All of the above of course, is reliant upon the rate of speed at which the plates have moved over history, remaining relatively the same over the last 3.2 billion years. Another major presumption evolutionary scientists make over and again according to their chosen faith which of course denies a global flood just as the Apostle Peter predicted. So be it.

QuoteFu and Brenner's work differs from most studies because the scientists focused on measuring the position of the rocks over time while other work tends to focus on chemical structures in the rocks that suggest tectonic movement.

Researchers used the novel Quantum Diamond Microscope to confirm their findings from 3.2 billion years ago. The microscope images the magnetic fields and particles of a sample. It was developed in collaboration between researchers at Harvard and MIT.

In the paper, the researchers point out they weren't able to rule out a phenomenon called "true polar wander." It can also cause the Earth's surface to shift. Their results lean more towards plate tectonic motion because of the time interval of this geological movement.

Fu and Brenner plan to keep analyzing data from the Pilbara Craton and other samples from around the world in future experiments. A love of the outdoors drives both of them, and so does an academic need to understand the Earth's planetary history.

"This is part of our heritage," Brenner said.

It is good to know that these scientists have an academic need to understand our Earth's planetary history, even though apparently their love of the outdoors is the main motivator behind their investigations. As is obvious, their "scientific" investigation and conclusions are based more upon their chosen faith in evolutionary deep time, than simply allowing evidence to pint one way or another. Even their methods which admittedly only hopefully suggest what they wish to be true, are geared toward this chosen end. This is not to say that seeking evidence to support one's chosen faith or theory is necessarily wrong, it is not. Pretending one's faith or theory is already established fact is where the wrong begins to happen. Of course there would be no wrong attributable, if one's "science" admitted of the faith involved from the get go. Unfortunately, this is not the current trend among many "scientists" so called.

Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. 24 And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 25 Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jun 06, 2020 - 10:48:00
Key word I reckon would have to be admitted. We can and probably have all been wrong without ever admitting it. This much I will confess, if I have to correct a former position, that means it or something about it, was wrong. I hold the same to be true for others as well. I have supplied many articles by evolutionists addressing corrections of previous views especially regarding time issues. There are of course many many more out there.

Once again, if you even try to understand how science works you would not be using the term "wrong" in the sense that the original theory had zero merit.