Choosing a faith

So what does that mean to you? We live with in a universe where entropy is a fact of life and death. Yes we have a knowledge of good anbd evil which is another characteristic of this world.What is your justification for understanding this as if it is an account written the day after it occurred and written up in a newspaper? It is a mythology written to represent the ancient beliefs. I will agree that it was a relatively sophisticated mythology when read alongside other mythologies at the time. I'll assume then that you aren't going to be judged. Remember Paul telling us to judge not that we be not judged. Maybe we should let God decide how this jjudging business goes. The Biblical message is that He judges the heart. So you agree then that Yahweh actually committed genocide and ordered the Jews to do so on other occasions.Clearly then you worship a different deity than Jesus did.By using your understanding of the OT, those of us in the West should be intent on slaughtering everyone in Islamic nations. A few nukes would do the job quite nicely. Isn't that what your genocidal god would have us do? So what do you think that God considers sin? What do you think God's judgement looks like? Does someone who grows up in a home where he is loved and encouraged judged on the same basis by what he/she does as compared to someone who is kicked around and abused in foster homes? So then, He is only going to save those who subscribe to correct doctrine then, which is obviously the doctrine that you hold. I would suggest to you that people are saved because they have been given a job to do, aChrist like vocation. We pray that God's Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven and we are charged with doing that by reflecting God's love into His creation. Yes and Jesus is recognized as a King and he ruled by washing the disciples feet and telling them to reach out to even the Romans with love. So once again you tell us that you worship a genocidal deity who calls the followers that He loves to slaughter men, women children and infants. He says at one point show them no mercy. I guess he never heard about PTSD and what it would do to those who were called to bring his love to the world. Why is it then that God didn't destroy the Nazis, Pol Pot and his followers Stalin etc?
​ Most of your belief in this comes from from Jesus' warning of what would happen if the Jews engaged the Romans militarily. Then why would you understand Leviticus in the same way that you would understand Matthew?​

...and could you ask who wrote the gospels 'cos the wold wants to know.

Especially if there are any royalties or commissions involved. I had family in the area back then.

Candle2, you repeatedly assert RM dating is unreliable without any evidence, and don’t address the contrary evidence that is put forward.
Toba volcano eruption dated at 74000 years ago is rated as the biggest eruption in about the last million years. It put a thick layer of ash on India. with human artefacts found above and also below.
In Greenland ice cores annual layers can be counted to at least 80,000. A strong increase in volcanic products can be seen at 74 000 years ago, just where expected for Toba
To me, this shows support for the validity of RMD. What does it show you?Around the world both on land and sea there are chains of old volcanoes that have been dated and found to have increasing dates from end to end consistent with the rate of movement of their tectonic plate.
There is a chain up the East coast of Australia ranging from 6 to 33 million years over more than 2000 km. These are the unerupted plugs left when the volcano dies and the cone is eroded away.
The increase in dates is consistent with the rate of movement of the Australian tectonic plate.Why should I not regard this as good support for RMD?
Toba also shows humanity goes back further than 6,000 years.

Further to the above, a term often seen in recent geology articles is “high-precision U-Pb dating”.
Apparently those scientists who pay good money for dates that they are mostly going to throw away think they can fool more people by pretending greater accuracy!????

Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you?After I explained it to you in the topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, you still post those same stupid bullshit creationist lies? Are you incapable of learning anything? Or are you nothing but an unprincipled and unrepentant liar and a deceiver serving a Deceiver God? (that has been your consistent witness) First, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not care one bit what the Bible says, but rather in the extensive and highly detailed fairy tales that your religions tells you is what the Bible says, but which do not exist in the Bible. Such a high degree of detail in maunderings about the supernatural is a sure sign of it being total bullshit, just as high degrees of complexity in Life is a sure sign that it had evolved.Second, your references to "flaws in dating techniques" are nothing but bullshit creationist lies. They are grossly simplistic nonsense which completely ignore the actual techniques used in dating methods with some extra lies thrown in. Granted, you're too stupid to know any better (which is why they feed those lies to you bottom-feeding creationists who would swallow a sea-camel whole while straining at the smallest of actual facts -- that's a reference from the Gospels which I'm sure you will not recognize; unlike you, we have read the Bible).Instead of rotting your brain (or rather what little is left of it) with creationist lies, learn the science yourself! You can start by taking one creationist claim (especially one that claims to use a scientific source) and verify it by looking up that source to see what it actually says and compare that to how the creationist had lied about that source. Also research into the actual techniques that science uses, again comparing that to the lies creationists tell about it.All creationists are liars and dishonest. Well, almost all. In four decades, I can only remember meeting one creationist who was honest. On CompuServe (effectively the Internet at the time), Merle argued for creationism, but he would do something that no other creationist would: he would go to the university library and do actual research to support his arguments and to check out the counter-claims. Within a year, he was arguing against those same creationist arguments. The danger for a creationist who seeks the Truth is that he will end up learning that the Truth does not lie in creationism, quite the opposite.So you are trapped in a cycle of willful ignorance and willful stupidity as the only way you can sustain the creationist lies upon which you have made your religion absolutely dependent. And what "true religion" has to depend solely on lies? It is indeed so much older than that. And earth and life have had a much much longer histories than ever dreamed of in your folklore. You just cannot allow yourself to realize that, so you have to discredit that fact in any way you can, including by lying. Just as you have just lied about dating methods.One who actually believed in Creation would see the facts of reality as a guide to understanding the Creation and hence the Creator (the role of science for actual believers in Creation). I have called them "actual creationists" in order to differentiate them from you fake creationists (AKA, just plain "creationists") who instead believe that the Creation, AKA reality, instead disproves the Creator -- in case that wasn't clear, when we refer to creationists and creationism we refer to you fake creationists and your fake creationism.The evidence supports reality, so since you creationists are trying to disprove reality then the evidence only does not support your cause but it also disproves it. Therefore, all you have left at your disposal is to lie about the evidence.Just as you have just lied about dating methods. The next reply will deal with those lies in more detail.But first, do please answer this question which I repost ... again!Your fake creationism teaches you that your faith and even God depend on that creationism, such that if the earth is indeed found to be older than 10,000 years, "then Scripture would have no meaning" (John Morris of the ICR).But is that true? Why? 

Again, why are you still posting those same old many-time-over-refuted stupid bullshit creationist lies when you know better? Did you really learn nothing at all when I explained it to you in the topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2? Are you incapable of learning anything? Or are you nothing but an unprincipled and unrepentant liar and a deceiver serving a Deceiver God? (that has been your consistent witness)OK, let's go through a few of them yet again. You've tried this bullshit before. The "assumptions" that you "cite" have proven to be nonsensical lies. But you refuse to learn, so you just keep on repeating the same old lies. What is wrong with you? What the fuck are you talking about?First, in what way does the daughter atoms have anything at all to do with radiocarbon dating?The answer is absolutely nothing!What is the daughter of C-14 decay? Nitrogen! When does the radiocarbon dating method count nitrogen atoms? NEVER! Radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12; the amount of the daughter element, nitrogen, plays absolutely no part. You fucking idiot! You had claimed to know all about radiocarbon dating, but you don't know that? You told us that you know the subject when you actually know nothing about it, you lying piece of shit!Second, in other radiometric methods, it's not the daughter element that could play a role, but rather the daughter isotope. As I explained to you in Message 8:  But let's look at that hourglass "analogy" that you offer and which is complete and utter nonsense as I will demonstrate. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? That makes absolutely no sense at all, let alone have anything at all to do with radiometric dating!When all the red sand in the upper bowl has emptied into the lower bowl and mixed with the green sand, YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RED AND GREEN AS YOU HAD STARTED WITH! Idiot!Instead, lose the hourglass (it's useless) and replace it with a single bowl into which you pour the initial quantities of red and green sand. Then over time, the red sand will decay into its daughter isotope, which is yellow (the addition of red light and green light). Then to figure out how long it took, you use the ratio of red to yellow -- the green sand is not involved at all.As I quoted to you in Message 8 Isochron Dating, by Chris Stassen (1994-1998) on Talk Origins Archive (short excerpt copied here). AOBTW, Stassen starts out reviewing the simplistic model that creationists never get past and addresses all of their "concerns about assumptions", so do go back and re-read that Message 8: Taq extended me in his Message 9 the courtesy of posting the graphics that I could only describe.So we see that the non-radiogenic daughter isotope is taken into account, so your fake "concern about an assumption" is without basis nor merit.Furthermore, the graph is plotted with ratios taken from multiple crystals, such that those points will end up on a straight line whose slope represents the age. If there is no problem. If they do not fall on a straight line, then there's a problem with the samples and the result (well, no straight line therefore no slope therefore no date) is invalid and needs to be discarded.So, no blindly followed assumptions, because science does not work that way. Rather, an example of an endeavor which does blindly follow assumptions and cannot and will not try to test and verify results would be religion. As should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers (an engineering expression). So what? Of course we need to prevent contamination, but not by what you are describing.As described to me, isochrons are not used on the rock matrix, but rather on crystals. Molecules and atoms inside a crystal are locked in place. And to my knowledge, water does not tend to flow freely through crystals.So, yet again, what the hell are you talking about? Yes, but so what? As any geologist can tell you, you're going to get those kinds of result from an volcanic eruption due to the abundant presence of xenoliths:

quote:

---

In geology, the term xenolith is almost exclusively used to describe inclusions in igneous rock entrained during magma ascent, emplacement and eruption. Xenoliths may be engulfed along the margins of a magma chamber, torn loose from the walls of an erupting lava conduit or explosive diatreme or picked up along the base of a flowing body of lava on the Earth's surface.

---

You see, in order to "reset the clock" of a rock, it must be completely melted. The crystals of the former rock must completely melt down so that the magma can completely mix, and then as that melt solidifies, new crystals will form with their ratios of isotopes and the clock starts running again.Obviously (even to you) if magma contains older rocks which have not melted, then those older rocks' "clocks" will still be set to when they last formed out of a melt however many thousands or millions of years ago that was. Therefore the "bad ages" you complain about were the ages of the xenoliths, not of an new igneous rock.The geologist taking samples would need to identify and ignore the xenoliths, restricting his sample taking to the rocks that he wants to date. A creationist with geology training (up to and including a PhD Geology) would do the exact opposite. A normal geologist wants to get the actual age of the samples, whereas the creationist wants to "expose" the dating method as being "flawed", so he wants to get a false age.Geologists have tested the methods extensively in order to learn what could go wrong and how to detect when it does. You want to boast that creationists know about serious problems with the methods that the scientists are blind to. Nope! Geologists are well aware of the problems and how to detect them and deal with them. And how did they find out? From creationists? Hell no! From extensive research and testing performed by geologists. All creationists have done is to use that research for their own dishonest purposes (eg, spreading their deception). A geologist would know what samples would give bad results and so avoids them, but a creationist would seek out samples that would give bad results and collect those samples and submit them.No, they are very reliable, but only if you perform the procedure correctly. If you screw up the procedure, then it won't work, just as it is for every other procedure out there.But creationists go another step by screwing up the procedure on purpose. They will do such things as collect bad samples meant to give bad results or submit samples for testing with a method that is wrong for them (eg, submitting a dinosaur fossil for C-14 testing (including forgetting to mention the shellac on that museum piece) ). OK, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE? Otherwise, you're just pulling more lies out of your ass.We need to see what the source actually says, even if it is creationist (and hence lying). Hopefully, that creationist will cite a non-creationist source, even more hopefully a scientific source. Then when given a scientific source, we can see what it actually says.So what is your source? 

GDR, I don't have that much free time all at once in
which to reply to you entire post; I will have to do it a
little at at time.Let's read Matthew 7: 1-5 when referring to what Paul said
about judging.1. "Judge not that you be not judged."2. "For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to
you again."3. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's
eye, but considered not the beam that is in thine own eye?"4. "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out the
mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own
eye?"5. "Thou hypocrite, first section out the beam out of thy own
eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote
out of thybrother's eye."Thou shall not judge is usually stated when someone who
is violating God's laws is confronted by another.It shows a poor understanding of scripture.One thing is certain: we are never to judge another's
behavior in a condemning manner. We cannot looks
at another person's heart the way God can.One need not judge another's motive, but there is no
judging when it comes to sin. God spells it out for us.We can see when a brother in faith is sinning agaist God's
laws and Commandments.And, it is up to his brothers in Christ to speak with him
about it. Everyone had been guilty of sinning.Notice carefully what Matthew stated. First cast the
beam out of thine own eye: AND THEN SHALT THOU SEE
CLEARLY TO CAST OUT THE MOTE OUT OF THY
BROTHER'S EYE.God does not command us to not confront our brothers.
In fact, he wants up to do so. To admonish each other and
to build each other up.But, if we do this without confronting our own sins and
weaknesses, we are then hypocrites.One must guard against taking a text out of context.It is also wise to learn everything the Bible states about a
certain subject.Isaiah 28;9-10 "Whom shall He teach knowledge? And
whom shall He make to understand doctrine?...""For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little."

candle2, it's just a story!It certainly looks like the Genesis account came from Sumerian myths and was absorbed into oral tradition shortly before it finally started getting written down.We are very familiar with how oral tradition works, so we know that it can change within a few generations; eg, the Romantic movement of the 19th Century believed that folk tales went back for many centuries (part of the reason linguists like the Brothers Grimm collected them) whereas in reality they typically only went back a few generations. In addition, new details or entire stories could creep in or get dropped within a single generation in response to new information (eg, the "completely isolated" tribe with a myth about the star Sirius had changed the myth adding a companion to Sirius in response to modern news that had leaked in of the discovery of the white dwarf, Sirius B, visible only by telescope).Your (pl) fantasy of the Genesis oral tradition extending back for millennia completely unchanged in all its minute details requires an enormous belief in human infallibility that is just too crazy to accept. It is ironic that fundamentalists will preach that human efforts fail because we are so fallible and yet their beliefs in biblical inerrancy require belief in human infallibility. It's just a story!Because large numbers of humans traditionally live in the low lands near the sea shore, areas which were affected by the actual world-wide flood which we are still in the midst of: the rising sea level which has flooded the low lands. It's hard to miss something like that as the encroaching sea swallows up your settlements and entire valleys.During the ice ages, a lot of the oceans' water was locked in the ice caps, making sea level hundreds of feet lower. During that time, what's now shallow seas (eg, the Bering Strait, Persian Gulf, Indonesia, Australia/Papua-New Guinea, were dry land. But when an ice age ended, the ice caps would melt and the sea level would rise, such that the lowlands would become flooded and high land within those lowlands would become islands (eg, Indonesia). Refer to the Wallace Line which forms a boundary between Asian and Australian animals and which corresponds to deep water that had formed a sea barrier to animal migration during an ice age.The last ice age, the Wisconsinan, ended about 11,000 to 17,000 years ago and the ice caps started to melt causing the sea level to start to rise. Since then, sea level has risen about 200 feet, driving millions of people out of their sea-side and lowland homes, so of course that flooding would be part of nearly every people's lore and the subject of flood stories. Periodic flooding in Mesopotamia was nothing compared to the massive and permanent flooding of the Persian Gulf.And, as I said, the actual flood never ended, but rather it is continuing and worsening due to rising temperatures causing more ice caps to melt. Glaciers are disappearing as they melt away. Arctic ice is disappearing, as are the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. When the Antarctic ice cap melts completely, sea level will rise another 150 feet.Frankly, I would be very surprised if there weren't many flood stories around the world, the Sumerian story and its derivatives being just a few of many.So what's your point? You're again just flapping your gums and waving your hands.That area was a large inland sea with a long and very complex history.Learn something about that history. HINT: you will never learn it from creationists, who instead will only lie to you.At the very least, get your information about science from science, not from creationists who are avowed enemies of science.A place to start would be the Wikipedia article, Geological history of North America (my emphasis added via bolding):

quote:

---

The geological history of North America comprises the history of geological occurrences and emergence of life in North America during the interval of time spanning from the formation of the Earth through to the emergence of humanity and the start of prehistory. At the start of the Paleozoic era, what is now "North" America was actually in the southern hemisphere. Marine life flourished in the country's many seas, although terrestrial life had not yet evolved. During the latter part of the Paleozoic, seas were largely replaced by swamps home to amphibians and early reptiles. When the continents had assembled into Pangaea drier conditions prevailed. The evolutionary precursors to mammals dominated the country until a mass extinction event ended their reign.

​

The Triassic, first period of the Mesozoic era followed. Dinosaurs evolved and began their rise to dominance, quickly spreading into the United States. Soon Pangaea began to split up and North America began drifting north and westward. During the latter Jurassic, the floodplains of the western states were home to dinosaurs like Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, and Stegosaurus. During the Cretaceous, the Gulf of Mexico expanded until it split North America in half. Plesiosaurs and mosasaurs swam in its waters. Later into the period it began to withdraw and the coastal plains of the western states were home to dinosaurs like Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, and Tyrannosaurus. Another mass extinction ended the reign of the dinosaurs.

​

The Cenozoic era began afterward. The inland sea of the Cretaceous gradually vanished and mammals were beginning to dominate the land. During the Eocene the western states were home to small primitive camels and horses as well as the carnivorous creodonts. Soon mammals had entered the oceans and the early whale Basilosaurus swam the coastal waters of the southeast. Rhino-like titanotheres dominated Oligocene South Dakota. From this point on the climate in the United States cooled until the Pleistocene, when glaciers spread. Saber-toothed cats, woolly mammoths, mastodons, and dire wolves roamed the land. Humans arrived across a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and may have played a role in hunting these animals into extinction.

---

Just a starting point for your education. Not only can no single event account for that, but the geological evidence contradicts the notion of your "global flood".In my article on geology, GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF AN ANCIENT EARTH, that I had written and posted on CompuServe in Feb 1990, I told the story of creationist geologists who suffered crises of faith from being faced with rock-hard geological facts that creationists had taught them did not exist and could not exist "for Scripture to have any meaning." Their experience made me realize how dangerous creationism is to believers' faith and that creationism is a very strong contributor to the growth and spread of atheism.That story follows. It had started when I had mentioned Glenn R. Morton, a practicing petroleum geologist and a former YEC (the end of his being a YEC followed the events of this quote):

quote:

---

Sorry for the delay, but I've been very busy and there is no end in sight.
So I have to answer this one very briefly, first with a more complete
recounting of Morton at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC).

​

Since his report was on the ICC itself, Robert Schadewald did not go into
great depth on this single subject. However, he did have conversations (and
breakfast) with Glenn R. Morton, a practicing petroleum geologist (area
geophysicist for Arco Exploration Co.) and a staunch creationist who "want[s]
an earth as young as [he] can get it," but who realizes that it is much older
than mere thousands of years. Morton has published numerous articles critical
of Flood Geology in the _Creation Research Society Quarterly_. His paper,
"Geological Challenges to a Young Earth," is a devastating rebuttal to Flood
Geology. On the day before Morton's presentation, Schadewald was trying to
explain some of the geological evidence against Flood Geology to a creationist
physicist (who, like most conference attendees, had no understanding of the
scientific ideas that he has rejecting) when he asked Morton to help out.
Morton obliged with a capsule version of his presentation -- this "capsule"
took an hour. Schadewald writes:

​

"As conventional geologists know, the evidence against Flood Geology
comes from everywhere. Morton cited the Green River shale, which has
bird tracks in many of its millions of layers. There are too many fossils;
microscopic fossils of diatoms are found in beds up to three kilometers
thick. Many limestones look just like shallow-water deposits being laid
down today, burrows and all. Seismic data shows ranges of mesas like we
see in the west today -- buried in sedimentary rock. Using oil well
drilling logs, geologists can map ancient rivers -- channeled deltas, sand
crescents, and so forth -- now deeply buried in sedimentary rock.
Pollen grains found in salt deposits prove they are evaporites, in clear
contradiction to Henry Morris' claims. And so on, for an hour. Morton's
job gives him access to a tremendous library of seismic profiles and well
logs, and he used these and other graphics to illustrate his points."

​

The entire ICR geology staff (John Morris, Steve Austin, and David McQueen)
was present the next day for Morton's presentation. During the question
period, Austin criticized Morton for attacking a 25-year-old publication and
then implicitly repudiated _The Genesis Flood_ himself. But the fun started
when John Morris identified himself as a petroleum geologist and accused Morton
of sounding like an anticreationist and told him to quit raising problems and
start solving them. Schadewald writes:

​

"Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton:
'What oil company did you work for?' Well, uh, actually Morris never
worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at
the University of Oklahoma. Second, 'How old is the earth?' 'If the
earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.'
Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage
College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were
utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist
deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much
better known for ignoring or denying problems than for working on them."

​

Notice that they suffered severe crises of FAITH, not of GEOLOGY!

---

I continued:

quote:

---

Morton had mentioned the Green River formation, which covers tens of
thousands of square miles in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. It consists in part
of finely stratified shales, 600 meters thick with, in one place, about twenty
million varves. Each varve is a thin layer of fine light sediment and an even
thinner layer of finer dark sediment and represents a single year's deposit
into a fresh-water lake (the light layers, containing pollen and spores, were
apparently laid down during the summer and the dark layers, consisting of clay
particles, in the winter). The extremely fine sediment that formed these
layers require very still water to settle out; even slight turbulence keeps
them in suspension. The same kinds of varves are presently forming in many
still lakes around the world.
This shale formed over millions of years. The width of the layers vary
in cycles of 11-1/2 years (the sunspot cycle), 50 years (unknown), and 12,000
years (precession of the equinoxes). That the 50-year cycle cannot be
explained helps to show that they were not imagined.
Morris tries to explain away the Green River formation by claiming that the
varves were formed by "a complex of shallow turbidity currents [flows of
mud-laden water]." This means that there would have had to have been forty
million such currents, perfectly alternating between light and dark, during
the year-long Flood. Each and every one of these currents had to have allowed
their extremely fine sediments to settle out (remember, any turbulence would
prevent this). If these currents persisted throughout the entire Flood, then
they needed to have perfectly formed three layers over tens of thousands of
square miles every second; if they persisted over a shorter period of time,
then each layer had to form that much more rapidly. And how could those birds
have made all those tracks in many of the layers with all this extremely rapid
layering going on? One major problem with "creation science" is the repeated
need to invoke miracles.

​

There's also the problem of desert deposits, which require both time and
dry land -- neither of which the Flood provides. The Old Red Sandstone extends
throughout northern Europe and has outcroppings in Greenland and North America.
It looks like a collection of fossilized desert dunes from a semi-arid
continent. They contain typical playas (desert salt-pan deposits complete with
cubic salt crystals), fossil mud cracks, and fossil lungfish. Extensive areas
in this formation contain cross-bedding and sand-blasted pebbles such as are
found only in modern desert sand dunes and in no other modern sediment. Such
features could not have formed in the Flood. And along the edge of this
continent, the sandstones interfinger with marine sediments, showing that the
shoreline had advanced and retreated several times over an extended period of
time.
There are many other examples of desert deposits, such as the Coconino
Sandstones in the Grand Canyon, the Navajo Sandstones in Utah, the
Mississippian Lodgepole Formation, and the Amsden Formation. Even the bottom
of the Mediterranean shows sun-baked mud cracks, wind-blown sand dunes,
desert-style alluvial fans, and evaporite deposits.

​

Evaporite deposits present a problem for Flood Geology because a deluge
would prevent dissolved salts from precipitating out of the water. The
concentration of salts in sea water is so low that thousands of cubic
kilometers of sea water would have to evaporate to form a typical evaporate
deposit. Every model for evaporite formation requires time. Many evaporate
deposits also contain varves, indicating repeated and periodic differences
in the environment -- as in seasonal changes. For example, the Castilian
evaporate formation in Texas contains over 260,000 pairs of varves, indicating
repeated and regular alternation of the brine concentration, meaning that the
formation probably took 260,000 years to form.
Traditional evaporite theory has evaporates forming in shallow lagoons in
arid regions, wherein the salts precipitated out of the evaporating water in
the reverse order in which they dissolved (and in the order in which they are
found in evaporates). Alternating rainy (diluting the lagoon water) and dry
seasons (concentrating it) can account very nicely for the varves.
The ICR tries to account for evaporite deposits by saying that the water
was boiled away by volcanic action (based on work by Russian geophysicist
Sozansky). But that does not account for the varves unless we assume 260,000
separate eruptions separated by enough time for the salt crystals to settle.
All within less than a year. Also, Sozansky claims that evaporate deposits are
free of organic matter, whereas the Castilian evaporates contain a lot of
plankton and other organic matter.

​

Above and below the desert deposits are sedimentary layers formed by water,
indicating different periods of submersion with extended dry periods inbetween.
Also, chemical analysis shows that some of the Grand Canyon's sedimentary
layers were deposited by sea water and others by fresh water, indicating that
the entire Flood waters had to have alternated repeatedly between being
completely replaced with sea water, then with fresh water, then with sea water
again.

​

Coral reefs present a similar problem as varves do. It takes time for
coral to grow; 1.0 to 2.5 cm per year under ideal conditions, but conditions
are seldom ideal. It takes even longer for reefs to form, only millimeters
per year, as old coral is broken up and cemented together. This means that
present reefs needed tens of thousands of years to grow, not the small
fraction that Flood Geology provides.
For example, the Eniwetok atoll consists of over a thousand cubic
kilometers of coral reef rock. The deepest core sample taken reveals coral
as thick as 1380 meters. If we assume an extremely generous growth rate of
1 cm/year, then it would take AT LEAST 138,000 years of Eniwetok to have
formed. Not only did it obviously take much longer, but there are very clear
and obvious gaps in the coral which show that the reef had at times been
raised above the water level and had been weathered (i.e. eroded) away.
Scientists estimate that it took millions of years for the Eniwetok atoll to
form; Flood Geology provides no more than 8,000 years.
Coral requires clear, non-turbulent water to grow; the Flood provides
neither, but rather would have killed off all the coral. Fossil reefs clearly
look like modern reefs, not debris thrown together by a single Flood. In some
places, as in the Randow lake reefs, where the reefs intertongue with
sedimentary rocks, we effectively have one reef buried above another. A core
sample drilled 332 meters into the ground in Pearl Harbor revealed 15 coral
reefs separated by fossil soils, coal, and beach rock. Elsewhere in Hawaii,
we have reef limestone covering volcanic ash covering trees buried where they
were growing covering another layer of reef limestone.
Ocean terraces, which look like stair steps, represent old shore lines and
are found on several tropical seacoasts. They often contain dead coral reefs,
many of which took thousands of years to form and each of which had to have
formed at a different time.

​

The greatest abundance of fossils are marine fossils, which contradicts
the creationist claim that the seas formed as an aftermath of the flood (a
very minor point, this). But instead of individual fossils jumbled together
by raging flood waters, we often find entire ecosystems buried in place where
they had lived. Moreover, these ecosystems are superpositioned above each
other, such that each ecosystem developed on top of the burial site of the
preceeding one. That means that between these numerous successive burials,
there had to have been enough time for the new ecosystem to form, be buried,
and have the next ecosystem grow on top of it. According to Flood Geology,
this happened repeatedly, all within a single year. The Flood does not provide
the needed time.

---

And so on.Glenn R. Morton went on to create a site in which he examined geological evidence and explained how it disproves your Flood. He also included a number of testimonials from former creationists who had very nearly suffered "spiritual death" at the hands of creationism. That includes Morton's own testimonials of how creationism had driven him to the verge of atheism.Much later, Morton took his site down because he feared that atheists would use it to attack Christianity (far from it!). However, much of his site was preserved on other sites. Here is my own writeup with links on my links page:

quote:

---

Glenn R. Morton

Old Earth Ministries archived a number of Morton's pages. That link takes you to their author profile page for him, which includes links to the about 20 articles of his that they have. It includes his two personal testimonials detailing his deconversion from young-earth creationism:

• Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism
  
• The Transformation of a Young Earth Creationist
  

​

Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look

This one's a two-fer! Courtesy of the WayBackMachine web archive, it's a good article from 1998 which counters a number of claims despite being short. Second, it starts with a list of about 50 links to his other articles, almost all of them dealing with the Flood and the actual geological evidence.

​

The WayBackMachine web archive's copy of Morton's site from 2010 August 11

Looks promising, but not all the links work (eg, his reporting of the "intelligent design" Nature of Nature conference in Waco, TX).
Fortunately, the index page for testimonials, Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle is there.

​

Talk Origins Archive

Glenn Morton had written several articles for talk.orgins.
Follow the link above and do a search on his name.

​

Google

Or whatever your favorite search engine happens to be.
Look up Glenn R. Morton.
Or better yet, "G.R. Morton", since that's what he would write in his copyright line.

---

Share and enjoy! You are stuck in the very mistaken idea of all those complex geological formation having been formed in a single event by a single cause.Common sense tells anyone that complex geology could not have been formed by any single event, but rather it was formed by a long history of multiple processes acting over very long periods of time. And you still have not answered the simple direct question: What the hell is an "evolutionist"?Sadly, you cannot answer that question because you do not know the answer. You have absolutely no clue!No creationist does. 

​I'll just answer this then and wait for your answer to the rest of my post. ..and the later you say this. Your contradict yourself in your own post. You make yourself the arbiter of the sin in other people's lives. Further than that you judge who is going to be right with God in the next life and who isn't. This has been a major problem in so called fundamentalism for years. It is all about what happens to us in the next life.Actually the Biblical message is that we are to be about reflecting God's love into His creation in this life and leave what happens in the next life up to God without trying to pre-judge anyone.

GDR, the Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin were in power for years
not centuries.The Amalekites and Amorites were continually evil for
centuries.Modern Israel (GB and the USA) are now as evil as any
nation that has ever existed.We murder our own babies by the millions. We insist that
men can become women and that women can become
men. Many have lost their jobs simply for misgendering
someone.Both Obama and Biden bathed the White House in the
rainbow colors of LGBT.Biden even raised the homosexual flag to the same height
as the American flag. This rainbow flag was centered
between two American flags.Recently Biden invited transgendered Dylan Mulvaney to
meet with him at the White House.Dylan has severe mental issues. In one commerical he
dressed and acted as though he was a six year old girl.
Who in their right mind believes this behavior deserves
an invite to the White House?Young girls are having their breasts hacked off, and young
boys are being castrated. They are being pumped full of
hormones from the opposite sex.These surgeries are irreversible. The government is behind
this insane madness.Companies and corporations are forced to go woke or
score low on the ESG score. Their ESG scores are more
important to them than their customers are.I could go on for days about how sick our society has
become. We are actually more depraved than were the
Amorites; the Amalekites; and, the people's of Sodom and
Gomorrah.We have reached a point to where God will soon intervene.
I am not concerned about myself; perfect love for God
eliminates fear. But my heart will hurt for others.But understand this: God judges and decides, not me or
you or anyone else.I have full faith and trust in His judgements.If you don't, you would do well ro readjust your relationship
with Him.

Dwise, everything you post is meaningless.Everything that evolutionists accept is based entirely on
"blind chance.""Chance alone Is at the source of every innovation, of all
creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free
but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of
evolution."Monod, J 1971, Chance and Necessity, pp. 112-113.Julian Huxley wrote: "Nowhere in all its vast extent is there
any trace of purpose, or even prospective significance. It
is impelled from behind by blind physical forces, a gigantic
and chaotic jazz dance of particles and radiation...in which
the overall tendency we have so far been able to detect is
that summarized by the second law of thermodynamics-
the tendency to run down."Huxley, J. 1953, Evolution in Action, pp. 11-12.The Bible states that the universe is running down. It is
waiting for the sons of God to restore it.Blind faith is not faith at all. It is credulity. A credulous
individual is willing to believe without any evidence.
Without even the slightest hint of evidence, a credulous
individual will believe.Chance is the absence of any know reason why an event
should turn out one way rather than another.Design is to plan or fashion artistically or skillfully. To
intend for a definite purpose (such as the eyes, ears,
heart, etc...). To form or conceive in the mind.Many evolutionists, sych as Dawkins, accept that humans,
the earth, and the universe have an appearance of design,
but their credulous mentality trusts more in blind chance.Blind chance is not science. In fact, it is the opposite of
science.The probability of a single protein forming by chance is
10 to the 64 power.One smaller than normal molecule made from 150 amino
acids aligned to ensure a folded chain on ancient earth
was 1 chance in 10 to the 164th power.Anyone who believes that this actually happened is in
need if psychological help.The placenta is one cell. All blood of the mother goes
through the placenta every ten minutes.The baby makes its own blood inside the placenta, but it
needs iron. And the only source is the mother's. But iron
cannot pass through the placenta barrier on its own.One protein of 100,000 different proteins in our body
(transferrin) binds to the mother's blood and carries it
across the placenta barrier.The chance of the right protein binding with mother's
blood is incalculable. And only the most credulous of
humans would accept that the right protein from
100,000 happened by chance on the first try.

Dwise, hemoglobin is a protein in red blood cells that
carry oxygen.Hemoglobin contains an arrangement of 539 amino
acids.Only five combinations are known to function in humans.The letters A through T represents the amino acids. The
total combinations of hemoglobin's amino acids is
4x10 to 619 power.To accept that one of the 5 right combination occurred by
blind chance reeks of ignorance.To accept that this occurred by chance undermines the
statistical foundation of science.80 zeroes is the estimated number of atoms in the
known universe.150 zeros is improbability bound. Worse than this states
that the opposite is true.One of the premier origin of life expert, Paul Davies, wrote:"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own
software, and where did the very peculiar form of
information needed to get the first living cell up and
running come from? Nobody knows."P. Davies, "Life Force," New Scientist, vol. 163: 2204 (18
Sept. 1999), pp. 27-30.This is appalling! These atheist scientists know absolutely
nothing about operational/observable science.Simply saying that they are credulous is giving them too
much credit. They are far worse than credulous.

And yet again you duck and dodge and do everything possible to avoid answering simple direct questions. You constantly deflect and divert to cover up the obvious fact that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.You falsely claim to be replying to my Message 2617 in which I responded directly to your outright lies about radiometric dating. That included this direct question: Of course, you will never answer that question both because you have no clue what you are talking about, but also because you are a lying piece-of-shit creationist (which is of course very redundant since all that is part of "creationist").Instead, you post yet another overly long stream of nonsensical bullshit lies -- creationist lies in this case, other lies in the case of your "reply" to GDR in Message 2621.Thank you yet again for your testimonial that your entire religion is nothing but pure crap. Pure projection!Everything I post to you is in direct reply to what you have posted! (ie, extensive use of qs-tags) I reply directly to you as indicated by my quoting the part of your messages that I am replying to. Furthermore, I explain what is wrong with your false claims and why they are wrong.IOW, what I post is full of meaning.In sharp contrast, you have never been seen to actually reply to anybody! You never quote the message that you claim to be replying to (not a single qs-tag ever). And none of your "replies" have anything to do with those messages you lie about "replying to".On top of which you only ever post complete nonsense. The very definition of "meaningless."And in addition to that, we know that your accusation, "everything you post is meaningless", is a complete lie. BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ ANYTHING THAT WE WRITE!Grow the fuck up already! Absolutely false!Such a completely false and ignorant statement is conclusive evidence that you have no idea what evolution is nor how it works. You truly do not know what you are talking about!That is why you absolutely must at the very least try to answer my simple direct questions (posting them here yet again for the n-th time -- REMEMBER: every time I have to repost from a previous message, it makes the new message longer, all because of your own malfeasance so don't complain to me because it's your own damned stupid fault): Plus there's still GDR's question to you of what an "evolutionist" is supposed to be, which you will never ever answer. You don't even know, do you? Typical stupid creationist. Typische selbstverständliche Schweinerei.For the quotemining, please provide the rest of the quote. Like the following few paragraphs from Monod. And what was hidden in the ellipses (ie, "...") in Huxley. Plus justify quoting such old sources.Interesting thing about ellipses: they can hide a helluva lot. Which is why the very first thing we must do when a creationist posts a quotemine is to go and read the original.There are so many infamous examples, but for me the most interesting one was a single sentence divided by an ellipsis. It was from a four-page article in which the first part was on the first page and the second part was on the last page in the concluding paragraph! Plus, needless to say, the two sentences those parts were lifted out of were saying something different from each other.That is why when encountering a creationist quote the sure bet is to dismiss it as a deliberate misquote, AKA "a deliberate lie". Yeah, so what's your point?You are trying to falsely claim that evolution is blind chance, which we have proven to be a lie!Nobody would believe such a stupid lie except for a stupid creationist.Please stop your damned lying. Which you will of course never do, because your God of Lies demands that you serve Him through lies.Everybody who understands evolution to any degree knows that it is not the same as blind chance.The only people who think that evolution is the same as blind chance are STUPID CREATIONISTS!You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Which is why it is so imperative for you to answer my questions! What a fucking idiot! "one cell"! The placenta is an organ. Organs are made of tissue, which in turn are made of cells. MANY CELLS, not just ONE!I do not for one moment doubt that you just blindly and mindlessly copied that idiocy from your creationist source. Which means that your source is possibly even more ignorance and stupid than you are. Nobody but a STUPID CREATIONIST would think such an incredibly stupid thing! Rather, those proteins would have evolved!Though your "happened by chance on the first try" betrays yet another ignorant and stupid way in which you do not understand anything about evolution. Which is why it is so imperative that you answer my question of how you think that evolution works. Because you will never be able to understand anything we tell you about evolution if you have such stupid false expectations of what our answers should tell you.So I guess that this is your admission that you creationists are "the most credulous of humans."Time for you to open your eyes and pull your head out of your ass. LEARN SOMETHING! 

You do realize that the bible stories of the amalekites and amorites are just stories. No historical evidence at all to support the stories.