There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Tym said:
Umm. No.. He's actually telling the truth..

Ariel Roth dose believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. and according to wikipedia:
Ariel A. Roth (born 1927) is a naturalized American zoologist and creationist who was born in Geneva, Switzerland. He is a leading figure in the field of flood geology, having been involved and published extensively on the creation-evolution controversy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_A._Roth#cite_note-0
Click to expand...

What I was saying is that he is full of shit when he said he had already read his book. If that where true than he would not have had to google him. I never said that the info that came about from his google was bullshit. Just his lame attempt at pretending that he had read anything other than a wiki post about him. He is a well respected scientist in the field of biology and his book is based on facts with a great deal of references to back up any claims that he makes.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
What I was saying is that he is full of shit when he said he had already read his book. If that where true than he would not have had to google him. I never said that the info that came about from his google was bullshit. Just his lame attempt at pretending that he had read anything other than a wiki post about him. He is a well respected scientist in the field of biology and his book is based on facts with a great deal of references to back up any claims that he makes.
Click to expand...
He didn't say he read the book, just the title.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Well now I know your full of shit. Why would you have to google him if you had read one of his books. You have not read anything. Your simply making shit up to try and discredit me. Your a joke man I see right through your crap and so does anyone else that just read that post.

As a matter of fact there is a whole chapter dedicated to the Geologic evidence for a worldwide flood. In that chapter he shows several diagrams as well as references to 41 different secular sources for his information.
Click to expand...
You will 't find that geologists don't accept his conclusions. I'm not a geologist, but I have read enough to know that 100% the claims of worldwide deluge are spurious at best and outright lies at other times.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Here is his conclusion to that chapter.


The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past. Such evidence fits well with a flood model. The incredibly widespread deposits in earths sedimentary layers also seem to support a flood model. The scarcity of erosion at the gaps in the sedimentary layers, where significant portions of the geologic column are missing, infers rapid deposition, as we would expect during the flood, without long intervals of time between. Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood.
Click to expand...
Notice how he says "Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood." And not "This data cannot be explained other than by a worldwide flood.". Cause he knows it can be explained without the use of a worldwide flood.

Abyssal fans take thousands of years to form, they don't form in the short time the biblical flood was said to last.
There wouldn't be enough time for a global flood to show any changes to the turbidites, and submarine fans.

Abyssal (or submarine) fans are formed due to turbidites. Turbidites are essentially gravity-driven underwater avalanches. As sediment is deposited on the continental slope, the steepest part of the ocean, it is prone to sliding down onto the continental rise due to gravity. Once the weight of the sediment accumulating gets to be too much, the pile of sediment will slide down all at once falling down onto the continental rise. After thousands of years of turbidite deposition on the rise, a fan forms towards the top of the continental rise. This fan is similar to an alluvial fan found on land near mountains and rivers. The abyssal fan has characteristics of a standard turbidite. The Bouma Sequence is used to describe the nature and sediment patterns of a turbidite.

I suggest looking up "Geologic column" on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column
There are no missing columns, there are no indications of world wide floods, and there is every indication that the earth is 4 and a half Billion years old, not 6000.
He doesn't provide any evidence does he? Does he provide names of journals he's had peer reviewed on the subject?
He's had many peer reviewed papers. But not a single one that has anything to do with a flood or the age of the earth..
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
mindphuk said:
You will 't find that geologists don't accept his conclusions. I'm not a geologist, but I have read enough to know that 100% the claims of worldwide deluge are spurious at best and outright lies at other times.
Click to expand...

Like I said, he provides several examples as well as alternative explanations to the flood theory. He simply presents the evidence and the theories presented by both sides. Even in his conclusion, you will notice that he does not make any definitive statements about it. He just states that there is not another explanation that adequately explains the data.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Like I said, he provides several examples as well as alternative explanations to the flood theory. He simply presents the evidence and the theories presented by both sides. Even in his conclusion, you will notice that he does not make any definitive statements about it. He just states that there is not another explanation that adequately explains the data.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't. He says it would be difficult to explain it any other way. But as I posted above, It's not. Please read my post. Thanks.
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Tym said:
Notice how he says "Some of these data are difficult to explain if one denies a worldwide flood." And not "This data cannot be explained other than by a worldwide flood.". Cause he knows it can be explained without the use of a worldwide flood.

Abyssal fans take thousands of years to form, they don't form in the short time the biblical flood was said to last.
There wouldn't be enough time for a global flood to show any changes to the turbidites, and submarine fans.

Abyssal (or submarine) fans are formed due to turbidites. Turbidites are essentially gravity-driven underwater avalanches. As sediment is deposited on the continental slope, the steepest part of the ocean, it is prone to sliding down onto the continental rise due to gravity. Once the weight of the sediment accumulating gets to be too much, the pile of sediment will slide down all at once falling down onto the continental rise. After thousands of years of turbidite deposition on the rise, a fan forms towards the top of the continental rise. This fan is similar to an alluvial fan found on land near mountains and rivers. The abyssal fan has characteristics of a standard turbidite. The Bouma Sequence is used to describe the nature and sediment patterns of a turbidite.

I suggest looking up "Geologic column" on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_column
There are no missing columns, there are no indications of world wide floods, and there is every indication that the earth is 4 and a half Billion years old, not 6000.
He doesn't provide any evidence does he? Does he provide names of journals he's had peer reviewed on the subject?
He's had many peer reviewed papers. But not a single one that has anything to do with a flood or the age of the earth..
Click to expand...

I think this is why you just need to read it for yourself. He does not try to convince you that his opinion is the right one. He puts forth the data and then gives both sides of the the argument. He then provides sources that support both points of view. This book is more about presenting the arguments on both sides. And then on occasion compares it to scripture to see if any connection can be made when applicable. Obviously that can only applied to certain topics such as a global flood. He does provide several instances where aquatic fossils where found high up in mountainous regions that was very compelling. Just to show how unbiased he is here is a section from that chapter.

"For several reasons it does not appear that we can reconcile this idea with the biblical record and the worldwide distribution of sediments and fossils." In that section of the chapter he was addressing one of the creationists claims and then debunking it.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
I think this is why you just need to read it for yourself. He does not try to convince you that his opinion is the right one. He puts forth the data and then gives both sides of the the argument. He then provides sources that support both points of view. This book is more about presenting the arguments on both sides. And then on occasion compares it to scripture to see if any connection can be made when applicable. Obviously that can only applied to certain topics such as a global flood. He does provide several instances where aquatic fossils where found high up in mountainous regions that was very compelling. Just to show how unbiased he is here is a section from that chapter.

"For several reasons it does not appear that we can reconcile this idea with the biblical record and the worldwide distribution of sediments and fossils." In that section of the chapter he was addressing one of the creationists claims and then debunking it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand. But the "evidence" he gives is just words in his own book. Just like how the bible doesn't prove the existence of god, his book does not lend credibility to his claims of evidence.
Scientifically peer reviewed papers are needed before any credibility can be given to his claims. He says there are missing Geologic columns, he says, "The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past.", but where does he give you the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are the studies? Where are the results of the myriad of tests that must have been done?
 
crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Tym said:
Yes, I understand. But the "evidence" he gives is just words in his own book. Just like how the bible doesn't prove the existence of god, his book does not lend credibility to his claims of evidence.
Scientifically peer reviewed papers are needed before any credibility can be given to his claims. He says there are missing Geologic columns, he says, "The great quantity of marine layers, turbidites, and submarine fans, as well as a strong depositional directionality exhibited by the sediments on the continents, substantiate great underwater activity on those continents in the past.", but where does he give you the evidence? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are the studies? Where are the results of the myriad of tests that must have been done?
Click to expand...

No he also provided 41 secular sources to support his claims as well as diagrams and pictures to help demonstrate his point.
Your making claims about what he says without taking the time to find out for yourself. If I had a scanner I would scan the pages and let you read it yourself. But since I don't the only thing I can do is suggest that you read it for yourself or try and re write it on here. Once again I thing you would be surprised at how many resources he references.
 
Tym

Tym

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
No he also provided 41 secular sources to support his claims as well as diagrams and pictures to help demonstrate his point.
Your making claims about what he says without taking the time to find out for yourself. If I had a scanner I would scan the pages and let you read it yourself. But since I don't the only thing I can do is suggest that you read it for yourself or try and re write it on here. Once again I thing you would be surprised at how many resources he references.
Click to expand...
That's fine, and I will most likely take a look at his book (always looking for a good read). But as it stands, at this point it time. There is no evidence of a flood or the world being 6000 years old. He can reference as many sources that he wants. There is not 1 scientifically peer reviewed paper that supports a global flood or the earth being 6000 years old. If there was evidence, there would be at least 1 peer reviewed paper on the subject.
Till there is evidence to support his claim, I cannot accept it.

Some people don't care how accurate their view of reality is, I want mine to be as close to %100 as possible. And you don't get that way by faith, or be believing claims that are unsupported by evidence.
What was the name of that book again? I'll add it to my list :) Hope it's in Ebook format!
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
I've got another book that is full of evidence that a flood did in fact happen AND the earth is only 6,000 years old. It's called the bible. I suggest you read it cover to cover, it will answer all your questions.

But seriously I can't believe you guys are still debating with crackertard. It's clear he lost the debate, and refuses to concede. It is still humorous to watch him attempt though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top