Thanks for the response.

Could I also ask how, in light of your affirmation that you believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, you respond to the fundamental principles of metallurgy, chemistry and geophysics as it pertains to industrial manufacturing? From a scientific viewpoint of course please? Is carbon dating a hoax? Are fossil fuels not the decaying hydrocarbons of 500 million year old plants science perceives them to be? Do geologist waste their time studying the fascinating "dance" of the tectonic plates on a 4.5 billion year old cooling Earth, and just assume the very metals and alloys you would require in a manufacturing capacity popped out of the "chaos" days before the pyramids sprung out of the ground? (Interesting side note on the Pyramids, while the Old Testament timeline says they predate Noah and the flood that destroyed all man mad structures on Earth they seem to still be there?).
I agree with you BTW I too see science as a "description" or perhaps even an "instruction manual" on this wonderful creation of his of all thing visible and invisible in the universe... God, I believe , has ALL the answers. I just dont think he has told ANYONE on earth what they are, especially not the heads of so called "major" religions..... The bible, at least in my eyes, is a bit like an old encyclopedia, just one that is really really reallly really out of date, written by people who believed in what they wrote at the time.... 

I have a much simpler question. If we assume the flood happened and Noah (600 years old at the time) built said ark. Floodwaters receded leaving the boat parked on Mt Ararat.

So far, so good.

Animals disembarked and went forth and multiplied right?

Sooooo.........a 2 part question here. How did the all the marsupials and monotremes in the world know that they all needed to go to Australia and Australia only? 

And....... how did they manage to traverse the 14000km overland journey. Presumably they didn't build their own boat and would have had to make their way here under their own steam. Not sure how far a platypus can walk in a day. Did the kangaroos, quolls, echidnas and bandicoots wait for them or did they make their way separately? Given platypus need a lot of water how did they cross the deserts in Iran and Afghanistan?

I'm not taking the piss here (lowercase) johnsmith I'm genuinely interested in how you think this happened.

On this I was reading this thing about flat earthers and university grads and how NASA knows the earth is flat and space isn't real etc etc.

The bloke was saying at some point after being 'indoctrinated' all through university and life when those people arrive at NASA, the Chinese Space agency, European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Space X, any satellite manufacturer there must be a hell of a shock in the induction process.

NASA: 'By the way now you're working for us we need to let you know that everything we are doing here is all fake.'

Grad: 'What?!'

NASA: 'That's right, all of it'.

Grad: 'Holy smokes'.

NASA 'We get a lot of that but the main thing is not to tell anyone'. 

Grad: 'Anything else?'

NASA: 'Yeah all that stuff you learned about Marxism, you'll need to forget all about it'. **

** That last line added for Enzo and Rusty.

Also wondering if the fossils they find all the time were all laid down in said flood how come there's no human bones found alongside any dinosaur bones?

Will jump in Mono before johnsmith says carbon dating is only good for about 50 000 years and can't be used to date dinosaurs, hydrocarbon deposits etc..

Fortunately there's hundreds of other ways of determining the age of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating

It doesn't really matter anyway. I've run into this roadblock before. It's why I asked JS is the earth literally 6000 years old and that's it or is it 6000 years old with all the old stuff built into it.

Usually they say all the things you scientists are using, say ice cores that go back 10's of thousands of years, were put there by God on day dot. So not proof, checkmate! 

An even simpler question would be, if the worlds re-re population after the flood ALL fell onto Sham, Ham and the other son of Noah whose name I forget now, how did three lads from one farther manage to "create" a global population of white, brown, black, Asian peoples? How did the Indigenous Australians form from 3 God fearing white Canaanites and their virtuous missuses?

Oh yeah I was going to get to that. Simply not enough time if the flood happened 4000 years ago.

This is why I'm trying to establish what (lowercase) JS believes. Once I understand what he believes to be true we can move on to asking about those beliefs.

Like I said some of these blokes say will ice cores that go back 10s of thousands of years were put there by God to either (a) test your faith or (b) make the earth look older than it is. (Unsure of the reasoning of (b) though.)

For all your points, I have heard scientific reasoning on both sides. Even if I were to go through, point for point, and provide, say 100 references of scientists who give one side -- you would list 100 references to scientists who say the opposite. At that point, biases will come into play which side you go with.

That is why, my approach to this is to take the same approach as how Jesus and his apostles presented their argument.

Because once the argument -- that Jesus is God and Messiah of both Jews and non-Jews, the next logical step is, such a God is capable of creating the world in a super-natural way.

Whereas, right now, in your thinking, you would not accept any argument of the involvement of an all-powerful God .... not matter how much scientific evidence is given.

One example: if soil mechanics can prove that different layers can be produced within a matter of a few hours under catastrophic water flow -- versus the argument that it took millions of years ... you see that both sides are arguing from science, physics and the engineering discipline of soil-mechanics. You cannot say one side is not scientific, because both sides are offering scientific explanations. But if there are biases in you ... you'll just toss out one side and choose vote for your party by habit.

That is why, for the sequence of presenting the ideas, I want to follow the exact sequence that Jesus and the apostles presented their argument.

See Mono this is what I meant. There's no point bringing up things like science because he'll just bat you away with 'his' science.

So I get back to simple stuff. 

JS.

How did all the marsupials get to Australia and why only Australia?

and.....

Assuming a giant flood which replicated million of years of lain down sediment in hours why do we not find human fossils with dinosaur fossils.

In fact why is it the deeper you dig the more simple life becomes? Because if there were a giant flood which laid down everything in order that's a pretty neat trick. I suppose you could say smaller stuff got laid down first but then dinosaur bones should be in the layers above humans. 

BTW where are all the humans that were wiped from the face of the earth after the great flood? Shouldn't they all be in one nice neat layer aLl over the world?

@mono / tsf.

This pretty much explains people like (lowercase) johnsmith. https://www.facebook.com/reel/282376408020625

The bloke is 100% correct. No evidence presented about the earth's age would ever change his mind. None.

At the end of the day it's pointless to discuss any real science with blokes like JS.

Im uncomfortable lumping everyone into the same basket Muzzie.. Have met some really intelligent blokes (or at least I consider them to be intelligent) who happened to be both extremely educated and quite sincere in their faith yet they had a pretty open and honest  explanation of the juxtaposition of God as a creator of the universe and how it all panned out.... Its WORTH the conversation if nothing else just to find out what the hell the other side thinks... For example, johnsmith(lowercase) mentioned something about soil dynamics as an explanation of proof that geological events can be both violent and rapid thus, I assume, trying to explain the evidently recent birth of the Earth... This clearly disregards something as simple and measurable as continental drift for arguments sake... I wanted to get to the bottom of WHY they pick and choose certain elements of Science and not others..... and more importantly what happens to their core belief once they cannot explain the "evidence" away..... 

I'm talking about people who if literally rode a rocket to space would tell you that there was a projection outside the windows to make it look like the earth was a sphere.

Those blokes.

Give me some time - this weekend is packed.

I aim to provide a PowerPoint flow chart of key points that are crucial in thinking through this. That's because the decision is reached based on the totality of a massive amount of evidence -- not just back-and-forth of isolated points. It's necessary to see how all the dots join together, rather than solely arguing over each dot. I hope a flowchart will give a big-picture roadmap. That is how I had to satisfy myself of the truth of giving my lifetime to Jesus Christ. (Giving a lifetime to a lie cannot result in a good end-result.)

Regarding the soil mechanics --- my overall direction is to show that a decision about God cannot be made based entirely on Creation vs Evolution. That is because, for any given issue, there are scientific rationale both for and against Creation vs Evolution. Hence, the ultimate decision on Jesus Christ/God has to be based on the content of what Jesus said. And if it is accepted that Jesus is Creator-God, then the New Testament says He was the one through whom Father God created the universe and the world. etc. etc. And if it is accepted that Jesus Christ is all powerful Lord God, then it follows logically that Christ is at least technically capable of creating the world in 6 days. (But if a person flatly denies Christ, for that person, it automatically follows that Creation is ludicrous).

Back to soil mechanics. There is evidence, for and against, that the geological layers in the earth's upper crust can be formed within a matter of hours. During the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State in 1980, the catastrophic mud/earth slides created, within a matter of hours, very similar layers of earth. That shows, scientifically, that under catastrophic conditions, soil layers have been created within a matter of hours.

Does that geological soil-mechanics evidence from the Mount St. Helens eruption prove definitively that the layers of rock formations are caused by the flood at the time of Noah's Ark? Not definitively. But it does offer a plausible scientific example that it is scientifically and geologically possible.

The big-picture where I'm heading is that, for any given issue of Creation vs Evolution there is scientific arguments on both sides. Therefore, for me, there can be no resolution if debating Creation/Evolution in isolation. So we then move to the next issue, which is the message of Jesus Chris and his apostles. And if that is true, we work backwards and see that everything Jesus said is consistent with a 6 day creation - and there is scientific rationale to back up a lot/most of the key issues.

And when certain aspects of the Creation argument have holes which are difficult to explain --- likewise the Evolution side also has holes in their arguments. Given that impasse, people tend to just go with their biases, e.g. a person who flatly denies God will automatically think Creation is bunkum.

Hence, a crucial step in this discussion is to tackle the biases head on.

Yeah man, I know what you mean.... But there is a reason behind the assumption and I find it pretty fascinating to follow the mental gymnastics that go into some of these things... The flat earthers  are great fun to engage with btw.....  They have literally bent the rules of physics trying to explain the world is flat yet when asked if anyone has a picture of the end of the world they start talking about global conspiracies and the lizard people heheheheheh Ask one of them to talk to you about their concept of "gravity" for instance, you will shit your pants I kid you not :)

OK, I look forward to reading it.

Can I add, however that if you are beginning your "big picture road map" from the baseline of

"Hence, the ultimate decision on Jesus Christ/God has to be based on the content of what Jesus said" is not exactly an honest attempt on your behalf to tackle bias head on now is it?  Why cant the ultimate decision (or at least a part of the decision) be based on lack of scientific evidence of the existence of either God or Jesus? - and no I'm not talking about those vulgar Soviet experiments in the 50s and 60s trying to measure the physical quantity of the soul. 

Also, on what do you base your accuracy of what Jesus actually did say? The official recognised "bible" as designated according to the Catholic Church or the Orthodox one, or the Coptics or the Maronites or (when talking about the prophesies of who/what the Messiah is) the Jews or the Muslims?  Not to mention the billions (seemingly) of Protestant doctrines? By selecting one "source" are you not guilty of practising the same negative bias as you accuse us "sheep" of practising? What ever happened to doing your own research and critical thinking?

Pssst......

Hey johnny (lowercase) before you do all that can you answer the above?

And the other question of mine you ignored. Did God put all the old stuff in to make it look old or are we not reading it right? Say ice cores for example.

Please, please, please!

Bear in mind, you're talking to some dude on a football website saying he has the answer ... against millions of others who make the same claim.

But if this dude makes a statement of undeniable fact, then you go with the fact, not what the dude said.

This jungle-warfare of conflicting ideas in the world -- between atheists, theists, different religions, and all the major contradictions among Christian groups, particularly everyone saying there is no way of figuring out who is accurate .... God anticipated these conditions.

God made a way to navigate all this. And it is not "blind faith". It is entirely based on evidence and reasoning. Why? Because God made us in his likeness so that he can have full relationship with us as sons and daughters. For example, I have a tremendous relationship with my dog - but there is a dimension of relationship that I can only have with another human being: conversation, sharing of deep ideas, sharing of similar emotions etc. For this reason, God in the beginning created us in his likeness, with the motive of us being in loving relationship with this God.

A characteristic of this God is that he gives reasons for why he does things. For example, if I talk to you for 60 minutes, and my reason-for-doing-things is given at the 10 minute mark - and an example of how I do things is given at the 50 minute mark of the conversation. But if we slice and dice that conversation into isolated random sentences, and do not see the entire 60 minute conversation as one unity, that is how there are so many different interpretations in Christianity.

I address your core question: why not say there is insufficient scientific evidence? I speak as someone with a degree in a science-mathematics-related field more in the industrial manufacturing area. A smart craftsman knows the extent of what his tool-of-trade can, and cannot, do. It is a daft idiot who selects the wrong tool for the job e.g. selecting a chainsaw to measure temperature.

An idiot-scientist uses scientific method for a task where science is not designed to test.

In my first science class in high school, we learned what is "scientific method" - where we start with a hypothesis or theory, then we set up an experiment to test that theory. Then, from the repeatable results we draw a conclusion. A good experiment is something that anyone else, with suitable equipment, can repeat the experiment to get hopefully the same results to confirm the conclusion. Thus, scientific method is reliant on something that can be repeated.

Even if something happened thousands of years ago, the repeatability is in the mathematics and physics that does not change over millennia.

But if something only happened once, then science is the wrong too for testing a once-off event.

For a once-off event, the method of legal and witness evidence is used.

(Even forensic science is not testing the once-off event, but using repeatable procedures - such as testing for the presence of blood or DNA - and then extrapolations are made. In other words, forensic science can only test the repeatable part. Then the legal evidence is for the once-off event).

This leads to the conclusion that, for testing the assertion of a once-off Messiah, and a once-off Resurrection, and once-off miracles ... the correct tool for testing that is not science, because all these are not repeating events. Instead, the proper tool is the legal and evidence method.

I have professional training in both science, as well as the legal side.

It happens that much of the proofs in the New Testament are expressed in legal paradigms, e.g. covenant, justification by faith, condemnation (a legal term, not a psychological term) etc.

Hence, where scientific evidence dries up .... the next step is to examine the legal evidence and eyewitness evidence.

You referred also to the divergence of many Christian groups (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), and other non-Christian religions. My premise is: God anticipated all that. And has made a way to navigate through the fog.

Logically, if any of them diverge on core issues, they cannot be saying the same thing. For example, if all other worldwide religions say you stand a good chance of being saved if you do lots of good works ... but the argument of Jesus and his apostles is that you cannot be saved by doing lots of good works ... it means, they're not saying the same thing.

You can draw a straight line between a young earth creationist and a conspiracy theorist. (Not all conspiracy theorists mind you.)

They're willingness to dismiss vast amounts of evidence to suit their narrative is clearly on display.

A scientist starts with evidence and observations and builds a theory. They finesse the theory including any new evidence that comes to pass. If any conflicting evidence is found they change the theory or check if the data was incorrect. If the data was correct the theory is modified.

A young earth creationist starts with a theory and 'finds' the evidence that suits their 'theory'. Conveniently ignoring any other conflicting evidence.

I find it curious johnsmith (lowercase) that you have loads of time to write huge swathes of text but not answer my simple little questions.

Why is that?

Just start with one. How did all the marsupials and monotremes end up in Australia given the ark was grounded on Mt Ararat in Turkiye? 

johnsmith (lowecase), you are dancing around the subject without giving a clear concise answer in line with the legal and evidence based scientific training you (as a dude on a football website) claim to have. Scientific method, despite your assumptions, is NOT predicated on repeatability of method NOR can it be when the explanation of once of, sudden events, such as your Volcanic Soil dynamics example can attest to, lets skip that for a moment however and please explain to me how the whole "God anticipated all that. And has made a way to navigate through the fog." premise.....  That would presume a unifying "text book" passed on with your fabled "e.g. covenant, justification by faith, condemnation (a legal term, not a psychological term) etc." which I assume you mean the Bible? If so, which one?
The Jerusalem Version, The King James Version, The Revised New Version or the abomination the Watchtower publishes for the Jehovas perhaps? What about the Apocrypha and the Bools of Enoch and Mary, are they include or excluded? Who makes these decision WITHOUT any preconceived bias? 

A simple question, whose legal and eyewitness evidence is deemed part of God's navigation aid? When different accounts of the life of Jesus, all written within less than 100 years of each other, contradict the version of events even amongst the canonical books, which "evidence" is clear and which isn't? Who has the divine judgement to decide?
Please don't tell me your response will be to have "blind faith" in the Holy See and the "first amongst equals"?

And if one group of PhD scientists say Creation is nonsense, citing the kangaroos-getting-to-Australia example -- and another group of PhD scientists affirm Creation with plausible explanations for how the kangaroos get to Australia ... what would you do then?

A person should be able to declare the method of thinking that they would apply to problem-solving.

You're asking questions that I have, in the past, taken about 3-5 hours to go through with people, from first principles. Are you asking me to write a book?

On social media, we do not have the advantage of talking face to face for 3-5 hours. So, to overcome the limitations of a forum format, I propose to draw a map of where I propose to go, so that all the myriad of sub-discussions, we do not loose sight of the big-picture.

I'm a big fan of flat earth forums (and moon landing hoax forums) because they ask questions about stuff that I'm not sure of myself. Forget the ice wall for a minute and that planes can't fly over the Antarctica. I'm not on them all the time but I do visit them occasionally. Apollo ones more than flat earth ones. (I'm a massive space nerd.)

They'll ask a question  like 'How did the rover they drove on the moon get there? Are we expected to believe they carried it there on the LEM?'

And then some clever cookie will jump in and say 'Here you go, here's photos of how it folded up and was packed away in the LEM. Here's the schematics, here's testing footage, here's how the wheels were built' and on and on. It's great.

They're a great resource for how things were actually down or why things appear as they are.

FE's though, they do never seem to be able to tell you why stars rotate in the sky differently in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. They have tried admittedly with tortured explanations (see also above johnsmith (lowercase)) that are never convincing. 

I'm asking for the YEC (Young Earth Creationists) explanation of how it occurred. I'm not interested in balancing competing theories.

I understand that they have explanations for fossils and sediment I'm asking about the logistics of a platypus travelling 14000kms on foot through multiple deserts.

How did they get to Australia and Australia only?

I mean if it happened you should be able to tell me how it happened. If you can't answer me then maybe that should cause you pause for thought?

It seems to me that you are very reluctant to answer hard questions about these things I ask preferring to engage Mono in rambling metaphysical, philosophical discussions.

I started the thread. You engaged in it. Do me the courtesy of answering the questions without sidestepping them.

I've asked you before did God make the earth to look old? I could give you dozens of examples but let's just take ice cores they have drilled out that go back 2.7million years.

https://www.science.org/content/article/record-shattering-27-million-year-old-ice-core-reveals-start-ice-ages

Were they put there by God to look old or are those ice cores fake and/or misinterpreted?

Patience brother, he's drawing us "seekers of truth"  a map :)

I'm not reluctant.

To help you understand where I'm coming from - by nature, I am more a big-picture person than a small-picture person, so my first steps here are to establish a broad road-map.

Why? Because I've engaged in debates on these topics before - and they get nowhere, because of being bogged down in minutiae that really is not the main question.

e.g. I'll prove to you that the kangaroos-getting-to-Australia is not your main question in your search for truth. This Creation-Evolution thing is ultimately a question of whether God exists. Because the Evolutionist says Creation is ridiculous because there is no God who would ever be capable of doing it that way.

If the kangaroos-getting-to-Australia question could be answered in a methodical, plausible way ... would you then repent for your sins, and give the rest of your lifetime to serving that God, and loving that God, and receiving that God's daily friendship and loving parenthood of you?

I think not. To about-turn in one's life requires more than asking about how the kangaroos got to Australia.

Sure, the kangaroos question IS INDEED a vital component. But it is a bad engineer who starts fiddling with the parts, and has zero clue of how the parts fit together.

All I'm saying is: like a builder, we start with the architectural drawings. Like a car manufacturer, we start with the design drawings.

I am not running from the kangaroos issue. But I need to see whether that tiny element fits in the larger picture.

Summary: from the larger picture, there is a plausible explanation(s) for how the kangaroos get here. But if you reject the big-picture, you'll toss out any discussion on the tiny details.

It's like me explaining to you that, in the Pharma industry, there are PhD doctors whose job it is to test new medicines to check whether they're safe to enter the market. And in 2021, many of those PhD. doctors - whose job it is to test new medicines - were warning that these new vaccines were by-passing the usual safety standards, and that the initial data was showing that these had historically high damage rates that would never have been accepted in the past. BUT BUT BUT, if your big-picture is to 100% trust everything you hear from the TV, then there is no point arguing the small details, because you won't listen to anything that's opposite to your big picture. That is why, first, I am tackling your big picture, not your small picture.

Must admit though I would love to see peer reviewed and published papers on this. 

'and another group of PhD scientists affirm Creation with plausible explanations for how the kangaroos get to Australia'

I'll settle for a layman's explanation in the first instance.

Seems to me you are very reluctant.

Mate waffle on all you like. Let's assume the 'large picture' that a flood happened. But I have my doubts because, like you, I am a 'truth seeker'.

Could you please help me understand how playpusses made their way to Australia on foot travelling 14 000 km over multiple deserts after disembarking from an ark in Turkiye.

For me, as a truth-seeker' need to understand how these things happened. Only after I have received explanations can I process these in my brain.

This is a tiny first step. Help me on my journey. If I can understand this one thing I can build on it.

You should understand that because I am now in the 3% of people that don't accept what the vast majority of science is saying. I am the very person you purport to be regards vaccines. You should be doing all you can to convince me this is true.

Remember you said for every 100 scientists on one side saying one thing you can put up a 100 scientists from the other side telling me the opposite.

Tell me JS, please, set me free from my ignorance. 

You should just say 'I don't really know how platypusses got to Australia but I accept that it happened?'

Because we know that at the end of the day leaps of faith by people like you are required to jump over these hurdles when you can't provide a coherent evidence based answer.

The Flood is not the large-picture, as I see it.

The biggest picture is: Is there a God out there, and if so, is this God exactly as expressed in the Old Testament and then the New Testament of the Bible?

Because if there is, then that God would be entirely capable of creating the world in 6 days. And we would see the effects of that Creation in the tell-tale marks on the physical world.

For example, when "God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." (Gen 1:9) - if this happened over the course of one day -- rather than "bing" in a fraction of a second like TV magic -- then the movement of those land masses, across a period of a day, would be detected in the shift of continents, and the geological trail caused by that movement.

But if you are unwilling to even discuss the existence of a God of the Bible, then that prior bias would lead you to crush every idea associated with such a God as being ludicrous, and not worthy of a split second of your attention. That is how biases work. On the other forum, you wrote that the instant you saw the idea of "dangers of MRNA", you did not bother reading. Hence, you demonstrated that you're a person strongly driven by bias, and you see that as o.k.

I will define what a big-picture issue is: A Big-Picture issue is something that, in itself, would shift the conclusion from one side to the other side.

By that definition, if there is a God, then that would swing the entire equation of Creation-Evolution.

But irrespective of how the kangaroos-getting-to-Australia issue is debated, it does not swing the equation of Creation-Evolution - because there are plausible explanations both for and against. Thus, the kangaroos issue is a very small-picture issue.

Let's hear one then.

What are you afraid of?