Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
John, you are not using logic. Let's suppose that the earth is 6,000 years old and the history of the earth went exactly as it is literally interpreted from the Bible. Now, we many fossil sites (I have only listed two of them) that show nothing but aquatic lifeforms that are located in what is now the middle of a very large continent. So, since you are the one defending a global flood, how did these fossils get there?
Unfortunately you can't use logic as proof anymore. You need facts to prove it. There are many proofs by philosophers, scientist, mathematicians, theologists....that prove logic isn't really a good proof.
Logic is based around new discoveries, and using assumptions to find the meaning of the discoveries, logic in that, is based upon those assumptions. If a new discovery is found to disprove the previous meaning of the previous discovery, then the old logic is thrown out and so are the assumptions. The new assumptions to accomodate both the new and the old discovery is now the basis for the new logic. Hence Logic changes every century.
Forexample, tell a person in the 1500's you can make a dog using steel and plastic, logic tells them, it's impossible. Since new discoveries with electricity, and technology, the Sony AIBO is the dog that uses stell and plastic...hence logic is replaced.
they have organs that resemble more along the lines of mammals/amphibians(frogs)
What organs did they have that resembled amphibian ones? It should be more like birds/mammals/reptiles (very dependant on the type of dinosaur).
Unfortunately you can't use logic as proof anymore. You need facts to prove it. There are many proofs by philosophers, scientist, mathematicians, theologists....that prove logic isn't really a good proof.
Logic is based around new discoveries, and using assumptions to find the meaning of the discoveries, logic in that, is based upon those assumptions. If a new discovery is found to disprove the previous meaning of the previous discovery, then the old logic is thrown out and so are the assumptions. The new assumptions to accomodate both the new and the old discovery is now the basis for the new logic. Hence Logic changes every century.
Forexample, tell a person in the 1500's you can make a dog using steel and plastic, logic tells them, it's impossible. Since new discoveries with electricity, and technology, the Sony AIBO is the dog that uses stell and plastic...hence logic is replaced.
Firstly, you still use logic to determine what results are expected should a certain hypothesis be correct.
Secondly, you're misunderstanding what I said. I was telling John that he should use his logic to try and find explanations for why we find marine fossil beds inside a mountain range in the middle of a very large continent. He had been accusing me of making up my own strawman YEC theories so I asked him to come up with better, more logical ones that he would agree with.
I wasn't trying to logically prove something.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Why would they have been ground to a powder known as limestone? And if they were why do we have fossils at all?
You were talking about a force of water that would carve out the grand canyon. If the force of the water is that powerful, then any fossils in that water would be turned into a power they call lime.
Why do we have fossils? I suppose it is a part of the natural record that God gives to us to show His work in creation. Or perhaps your question was why were the fossils that got caught up in a flow of water destroyed and other fossils not destroyed? Because they were not in a river bed where there was a force of water working on them.
Did you ever see a flood? The rivers overflow and the flood planes fill up with water. The water is fairly still and soon turns into a breeding ground. But the river is moving at a good pace. Children playing in the calm still water of a flood have steped it the river without knowing it and been swept away and never seen again. We had flooding here last week where our flood level was above the 100 year mark. Two children did disappear like that and they still have not found them. There was one that got sucked into a sewer, but somehow he came out alive.
Ok, so why is it that nothing but marine organisms was turned into tar whereas the saber-toothed cats, dire wolves, mastodons, ground sloths, American camels, condors, one human, and many, many other terrestrial organisms were not? What geological mechanism turns only marine organisms into tar?
Your talking about different ages, eras or dispensations. The "tar" was formed before the ice age began, when this area was under water. Then when the ice age came the water level went down, and this became a rather interesting biodiversified ecology. Then the ice age came to an end, the climate changed again and the animals died off. This was the point where you would have your world wide flooding. Then the small ice age came and set things up pretty much the way they are today.
Evolution is the only answer that fits the data.
The question is does evolutionary theory line up with the truth or not. It is being falsified all the time. Yet the Bible has remain consistant and steadfast for 3500 years now. So at best evolutionary theory is just not reliable.
You were talking about a force of water that would carve out the grand canyon. If the force of the water is that powerful, then any fossils in that water would be turned into a power they call lime.
Ok, if you think that the water from the global flood would turn bones into lime then why do we have any fossils?
Why do we have fossils? I suppose it is a part of the natural record that God gives to us to show His work in creation.
Ok, so there was no natural process to turn these bones into fossils, God just wanted to make it look like the earth was billions of years old so he planted artificial fossils. Is that what you're saying?
Because they were not in a river bed where there was a force of water working on them.
So only fossils caught in riverbeds were turned into lime?
Did you ever see a flood?
Yes, I've seen floods.
The rivers overflow and the flood planes fill up with water. The water is fairly still and soon turns into a breeding ground. But the river is moving at a good pace. Children playing in the calm still water of a flood have steped it the river without knowing it and been swept away and never seen again.
John, as of right now you are dealing with normal, every day floods. We are talking about a flood that covered the entire earth in 40 days. These rivers would have been covered in too much water to have a current within a matter of hours to days. That is not enough time to turn bones into any sort of powder.
We had flooding here last week where our flood level was above the 100 year mark. Two children did disappear like that and they still have not found them. There was one that got sucked into a sewer, but somehow he came out alive.
That is tragic. I hope God protects those children.
Your talking about different ages, eras or dispensations. The "tar" was formed before the ice age began, when this area was under water. Then when the ice age came the water level went down, and this became a rather interesting biodiversified ecology. Then the ice age came to an end, the climate changed again and the animals died off. This was the point where you would have your world wide flooding. Then the small ice age came and set things up pretty much the way they are today.
John for the last time I am not here to discuss the gap theory. According to young earth creationism all of the animals I mentioned coexisted in North America prior to the flood.
The question is does evolutionary theory line up with the truth or not.
And it does
It is being falsified all the time.
Fine John, please feel free to start up a new thread with some of your favorite falsifications of evolution. I've yet to see any of them and would be most fascinated.
Yet the Bible has remain consistant and steadfast for 3500 years now.
A huh, so the Apocrypha was not dropped for the Protestant (your) Bible during the Reformation? Congratulations, you just rewrote history.
Edited for clarity
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Last edited by troodon; 1st August 2003 at 10:18 PM.
Ok, if you think that the water from the global flood would turn bones into lime then why do we have any fossils?
I just came in here because I thought maybe we could have a productive conversation about the various geological formations that you were talking about. I was hopeing maybe even I could learn a little bit of something. But it seems all your wanting to do is find someone to defend a 500 year old theory presented by Bishop Ussher.
According to the poll, 41% of the people who come to this forum are YEC, but none of them seem to want to have a conversation with you. Don't get mad at me, it's not my fault you can not get them to talk to you. At least not that I am aware of.
I think your wasting your time trying to kick a old dead carcass. There has to be a reason that God left us all the fossils and all the natural records that He did. We need to find out why. God is a God of the living, not the dead.
I just came in here because I thought maybe we could have a productive conversation about the various geological formations that you were talking about. I was hopeing maybe even I could learn a little bit of something. But it seems all your wanting to do is find someone to defend a 500 year old theory presented by Bishop Ussher.
All I want to do is get people to realize that the planet's geology falsifies a global flood. I'm sorry that my objective does not fulfill your desires for discussion, I'm sure we will find other things to discuss.
According to the poll, 41% of the people who come to this forum are YEC, but none of them seem to want to have a conversation with you.
Yes, it is sad when creationists simply ignore evidence falsifying their theory.
Don't get mad at me, it's not my fault you can not get them to talk to you.
Firstly, I wasn't mad at you, merely frustrated. I apologize if I made it sound like I was.
Secondly, I wasn't frustrated because I thought it was your fault that YECs ignore my little thread. You frustrated me because you expected me to use this thread to falsify your Gap theory when this thread was not intended to serve that purpose. If I wanted to falsify Gap I would take a different approach.
I think your wasting your time trying to kick a old dead carcass.
YEC is very dead as a scientific theory but as of now it is the theory I have the greatest fear of. I fear it being taught in school and decieving impressionable children and I fear its ability to make people dismiss evolution and its ability to make Christians rest all their faith in God and Christ into a falsified idea. YEC hurts the education of misguided Christians and hurts Christianity.
God is a God of the living, not the dead.
Is that supposed to be a reason to not study fossils or not use them as YEC falsification? I disagree with both.
Now, are there any YECs which wish to discuss this evidence?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
- the fossil record clearly shows that life suddenly appears and disappears, fully formed and perfectly suited for their environment.
- the fossil record has no intermediary stages to show an evolutionary path.
- the "cambrian explosion", is proof enough to show that there is no such thing as evolution. The deepest layer in which we find fossils is the Cambrian, before it there is nothing, no life whatsoever except for a few single celled bacteria..then, all of a sudden you see a WIIIIDE array of complex life forms, fully formed, with all sorts of complex organs, eyes, feet etc etc..not onlyu that but you had different TYPES of animals, fish, crustaceans, anthopods, urchins, etc etc etc
anyway...i have more..but whatever..who listens anyway these days. everyone is stubborn and proud and won't give in to proof
- the fossil record clearly shows that life suddenly appears and disappears, fully formed and perfectly suited for their environment.
- the fossil record has no intermediary stages to show an evolutionary path.
- the "cambrian explosion", is proof enough to show that there is no such thing as evolution. The deepest layer in which we find fossils is the Cambrian, before it there is nothing, no life whatsoever except for a few single celled bacteria..then, all of a sudden you see a WIIIIDE array of complex life forms, fully formed, with all sorts of complex organs, eyes, feet etc etc..not onlyu that but you had different TYPES of animals, fish, crustaceans, anthopods, urchins, etc etc etc
anyway...i have more..but whatever..who listens anyway these days. everyone is stubborn and proud and won't give in to proof
Thank you for completely ignoring the evidence provided in this thread. Now, would you like to try and address that evidence, or are you going to just continue ignoring it and pretend that the earth supports a global flood?
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
I didn't address the fossil issue because i don't see the flood as being global in the first place. Those who take it in that sense are being deceived.
Was the punishment brought on Sodom and Gomor (sp?) through Lot global?
Was the punishment brought on Pharoh and his minions global?
The flood was another such punishment sent to a specific poeple. Noah's people were corrupters in the earth. Despite many warnings from him, they continued to abase themselves in the sight of God. So HE wiped them out.
Geologists and archeologists are starting to find clues that a huge catastrophic event created the Black Sea. It was a valley about 4000BC, with cliffs seperating it from the Mediterranean sea. The evidence points to those cliffs collpasing and flooding the entire region. Pottery and dwellings have been found at the bottom of a specific area to the south of the Black Sea near Turkey.
Also, the Arc was said to have landed on Mount Ararat which is close by.
That's my view on the flood. God is known through reason, logic dictates it.
*bump* because some YECs are still under the misapprehension that geology doesn't falsify a global flood.
__________________
"Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution."
-Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine
Linear Mode
