steaknchips

Trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser and larger diameter of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the upright trees would then be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake can find many half-buried, upright trees at the bottom of the lake today. http://www.terragalleria.com/america/washington/mount-st-helens/picture.uswa11402.html This would explain, or at least could show evidence of a similar occurrence during a catastrophic flood (Noah). Hence the polystrate fossil trees we see today (which span the globe). Where today can we see a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly but not completely buried in an upright position? Are we supposed to believe these polystrate fossil trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or even millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized? These polystrate fossils that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time. Therefore, dating fossils/rocks by the layer of earth they are found in to support the theory of evolution is not valid. http://www.icr.org/article/what-are-polystrate-fossils/

Talking of you standing by your beliefs I believe Laura is still waiting for an answer to a question she asked at least twice. I don't believe for one minute you missed it which suggests you dodged it and that while you claim to stand by your beliefs you don't actually have the courage of your convictions. Which question is that?

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs.. Sorry if its upset some..

Quite simply, the sediment around it build up around it, If it is something like a tree trunk (which it obviously is) then it will remain in situ until covered over, the true date of the fossil will be found by dating the rock immediately below the core of the trunk. It would rot! It cannot possibly remain "insitu" . Each strata layer "is meant" to denote many, many years of time(according to evolutionists). Yet these polystrate fossils that are all over the world, stretch through "many" layers of strata.

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results. So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence. You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead. Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place? I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind. Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil Jesus Christ. You're giving evidence THAT YOU'VE ALREADY REFUTED. You don't see how that's an issue? You said carbon dating is bullcrap. You're then giving evidence BASED ON CARBON DATING. You fail to see the issue here? No im not...Im giving you evidence of a, a flood and b, a fossil that stretched "through" strata layers? Of which evolutionists tell us denoted different times in our history.. How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results. So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence. You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead. Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place? I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind. Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

How many do you want? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314725/As-researchers-prove-Red-Sea-really-parted--How-science-backs-Bibles-best-stories.html Its 2012 and NOTHING in the bible has been disproven as of yet...Strange!

This is how science works: Create theory, attempt to disprove theory, either throw away, refine, or accept theory. This is not how science works: Believe in something, attempt to find evidence to support belief, fail to find it, or find evidence that contradicts it, believe in it still anyway. The 2nd is what Wise attempted, and he should be shunned from the scientific community for it, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE. Exactly...Your not allowed to believe in creation because it goes against science. Even when all evidence points towards it...

In fact Wise so close to being kicked out from Harvard for believing in creation, shows you just how science works...How many just keep quiet to save their reputation I wonder? I know we have the ones that have come out...And been discredited all the same,goes with the territory I suppose...

Really? What makes you think that? And what are your opinions of Darwin? Read "Evolution a theory in crisis".. Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method? I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to. The Kurt Wise that said that even if all the evidence pointed against creationism he'd still believe in it because it's what the bible says? The guy isn't a scientist. He might have a phd in geology, but he's no scientist. Before that quote he also said(as a fine geologist he is)he would be 1st admit it, if evidence proved otherwise.

Really? What makes you think that? And what are your opinions of Darwin? Read "Evolution a theory in crisis".. Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method? I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to. Why attack Dawkins as full of shit if you're so sure of your position? Im just answering a post on a forum site...Im not going out my way to write a full essay to go public on my thoughts of Dawkins.. Why does Dawkins feel the need(a man in his position) to go out of his way to try and discredit Kurt Wise? Who he himself hasnt said a bad word about anyone? And Gould even keeping him in Harvard(as he was such a fine/clever student), when he was going to be kicked out "just because he believed in creation"...

Really? What makes you think that? And what are your opinions of Darwin? Read "Evolution a theory in crisis".. Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method? I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to.

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

*We all live for our desires; We are "by nature" children of wrath.. Ephesians 2;3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. *We go to heaven through grace and faith...NOT WORKS. Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

So you agree you are a complete hypocrite then ? Yes..

Risso, For what its worth I agree with Don entirely..

Having visited New Zealand twice it is a very beautiful place with comparitively few people. That's strange, after billions and billions of years of evolution, I would have thought the place would be jam packed.

Gareth you have got free will..Just because God "knows" what is going to happen dosnt mean you dont have free will.God is outside of time...Your thinking is inside of time. God is all knowing; 1 John 3;20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things. We cannot understand; 1 corinthians 2;14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. Heres another answer you could read on the subject. http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will

:oops: sorry double post.

How do you know they do wrong things?

Have you ever had a thought, opinion, an idea or a feeling of your own or are you just an embodiment of a selection of tedious cultish websites? Its not a cult website mate... Research Ministry CARM is a 501©3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God.

Good read for anyone finding this thread interesting; http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence and http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

Here read this; http://carm.org/atheism-free-will-rationality

Some of you were asking "If God knows what is going to happen, how can we have free will".. I have found this; http://carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will