6 Day Creation Is A Lie Because.....

Everyone interested please present your proof of evolution in a manner that a layman as myself and many others here can understand.
In others words, IN COMMON, NON-TECHNICAL ENGLISH

And please present FACTS, not meaningless conjecture/speculation

I am a 6 day creationist and believe my God did not have to distort the facts, He did it just like He said He did.

Other 6 day creationists, just give me an AMEN .....



NO ONE LINERS
These are a waste of time and space.

EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHY YOUR EVIDENCE PROVES THE BIBLES ACCOUNT OF 6 DAYS IS INNACURATE....




PS;

I started this thread in an attempt to gather all the information out there AGAINST 6 day creation into one thread on this topic.

Threads like Misinterpreting Genesis, Startlight and a young earth, Creationism, A question of interpretaion, all have good posts, but if they were all gathered into one, it would be easier to keep track of the discussion.
Can we at least agree on that ???

See, this is a waste of posting space, you just say something and everyone is supposed to think you are brilliant.

TELL US WHY IT IS INCONSISTANT WITH THE LITERAL BIBICAL ACCOUNT
Unless of course you have NO idea.

chickenman, did you show ANY proof or just continue to try to make yourself sound intelligent?

Proof would include actual EVIDENCE, not just some general comment.

I actually think, after seeing previous evidence, that noone has absolute proof or this topic would have been dead long ago.

If you cant present ACTUAL EVIDENCE (SPECIFIC), please stop wasting space here.

He's not trying to make himself sound intelligent. He is intelligent.

Proof would include actual EVIDENCE, not just some general comment.

I actually think, after seeing previous evidence, that noone has absolute proof or this topic would have been dead long ago.

If you cant present ACTUAL EVIDENCE (SPECIFIC), please stop wasting space here.

Hold on while I contact H.G. Wells and we can go back in time with his Time Machine. If we hit a wall at 6000 years, we'll know you were right.

Have you ever considered Anger Management classes?

__________________

THANK YOU TROODON, ESPECIALLY FOR BEING A LITTLE THOROUGH..

Since you presented things I have already seen I am not sure anyone wants to see a 2 page response.
I assume, as you have shown, that all of our information is second hand at best. Unless, of course, someone wants to slap some credentials up on the table.
Myself, I have none. So anything I ever state is to be taken with a grain of salt.
I would like to comment on a couple things, though.


Radiometric Dating:
The information I have seen on this leaves me thinking that it is guesswork at best.
Obviously a long list of proposed errors by many sources in this dating method could be presented.


2) Physiological similarities:
This one has always confused me as to its supposed proof of evolution.
In creating cars, common parts and ideas are used from design to design.
I fail to see how this is not just as easily shown to be proof of Intelligent Design. Unless of course ''bias'' in thrown into the mix. And yes, I am biased in my opinion as well.


3) Organization of the fossil record- Again, we have here a point where many inconsistancies on your ''Geologic Column'' could be shown.
I could list so many sites that debunk this type of ''evidence'', it would take days to go thru.



4) Microevolution- Your issue with the term KINDS is irrelevant.
Everone acts as if all these categories of species were here from the dawn of time.
In Levitcus, the bat is called an "OPH" in hebrew in a long list of birds.
Obviously all these distictions in species came along at some later period.
A ''kind'' is just that. A rabbit is a rabbit, a horse is a horse. Easy enough.

The fact that there is no hard definition of "kind'' to please the intellect in no way would show that a Rabbit will ever change over time into another ''kind'' of animal.

5) Non-funtioning pseudogenes:
You'll have to forgive my ignorance here, but I am still looking into this one.
I dont want to give any opinion until I have read more.
I will say that what I have read from both sides on this so far hasnt really impressed me as anything that would debunk a 6 day creation.
But I will get back to it.

6) Transitional fossils
I really wish you had listed one of the other ''many examples'' that are supposedly in existance.
Archaeopteryx would seem to be just another ''kind'' of bird that is extinct.
I can list lots of arguements showing this, but again, it is at least 3rd hand information.

7) John Goodman:
FINALLY, SOME REAL EVIDENCE

Dinosaurs would become extinct in how many days if the earth was created 6000 years ago?

__________________

Doubt is a powerful tool, it helps filter out lies. You can say that doubt is related to honesty, yet, religious followers will never doubt their beliefs.
The fact that God did not care to inspire mankind in the translation of his scriptures makes me doubt if he would care to inspire his scriptures in the first place
Being punished for holding an opinion that Jesus may not be God is as wacky as being punished for not having green as our favorite color.

Follower of Christ,

Since you expressed some expertise in breeding of rabbits, do you concider rabbits and hares to be of the same "kind"?

__________________

Not quite.  It only seems to disprove a young earth.  For a scientific Chrisitan analysis of radiometric results check this link:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


 

I started this thread in hopes that there would be some intelligent information presented in a single arena to eliminate the need to jump around so much.


What type of proof/evidence is this??

"Dinosaurs would become extinct in how many days if the earth was created 6000 years ago?"

Is this maybe some deep philosophical question designed to make us all ponder the nature of the universe or something?

Right now if I responded, it would be an uneducated guess.
Let me look into exactly what a hare is.

IF it appears to simply be a variation of rabbit that merely can no longer inter-breed with the rest of the rabbit ''kind'', then I would go with yes at that point that it was a rabbit ''kind'' with information loss leading to its lack of inter-breeding ability.


But as I said, I dont know enough about the animal to make a call about it yet