What makes a creationist a creationist?

This is not only a requirement of a belief in creation, although it is, it is also required by basic evolutionary theory. If the root stock of mammalian life were lactose intolerant, mammals would never have developed mammary glands, for they would have conferred no reproductive advantage. (Did you forget natural selection? )

There is no way light can travel at different speeds, it is a constant represented by Einsteins equation E=MC^2. While I suppose you could argue that light from distant stars or galaxies were there before the Earth formed, and indeed we do find those light sources, it does say definitively that the universe is at least as old as the farthest light source, which happens to be 13Ga(billion) light years away.



While the questions are valid your conclusions are not. In science theories are designed to explain a specific set of facts. For example the theory of gravity explains why things fall to Earth, and why moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars and so on. The theory of gravity doesn't explain how stars, planets or moons got there, only how they interact with each other due to their masses. Just because gravity doesn't explain the origins of such objects, it doesn't make the theory in less valid. Similarly just because evolution can't explain how the Earth got here, or how the first organisms came to be, it doesn't invalidate the explanations for the diversity of life evolutionary theory was meant to explain.



Abiogenesis has certain elements of evolution, like natural selection, but no matter how abiogenesis unfolds it doesn't do anything to the theory of evolution. Although the two are somewhat connected, the two fields of study focus on different facts, and in the end the two stand on their own.



Darwin and Mendel were brilliant people, but they did not discover the whole truth, and many of Darwin's ideas are just plain wrong! It has been over a hundred years since those two, and science has gone a long way since then. I do not choose man over God, I'm just not a fundamentalist and don't adhere to a literalist, inherent, or infallible interpretation to the Bible. My position isn't recent in theological history, St. Augustine was very outspoken against a literal interpretation of the Bible, and this is hundreds of years before Darwin. In actuality the fundamentalist movement, from where modern creationism originates from, was originally invented to combat Darwin's theory and theologically has only been around for about a hundred years.



I have not studied dating methods in any depth, but I have a general idea of how most of them work. I know you don't learn hardly anything about them in high school.



You assume that the Bible is literally true on every point and can be used in a myriad of fields. Because YEC's cannot question the Bible under any circumstances, they cannot do true science.



Let us start off with what foundation is evolution built upon in your opinion? And what does evolution fail to explain that creationism, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, can?



lol indeed. It is not a contradiction because I never suggested anything other than what I said. Your opinion may be that I am wrong, but I in no way contradicted myself in that sentence. One could be wrong on a thousand points, but it doesn't mean that they contradicted themselves, only that they are wrong on a thousand points.



Science does have very rigorous standards, I'm sure even Biblewriter would agree with me there.



As before, the heliocentric model destroyed some theological ideals back in its day, but Christianity survived. Religion and science for the most part have been at odds, but it is because people hold on to their dogma too much, they can't differentiate between dogma and God. Over time Christianity accepted the heliocentric model and now only a select few still hold on to the geocentric model, and even older is the flat Earth idea. Christianity will survive the transition to accepting evolution, because Christianity isn't about making claims about science, it is about God, and through His grace Christianity will persevere.


There have been scoffers for ever, not just in the end of days will there be those who mock Christianity. I think this passage was written to second generation Christians where disciples were starting to revert back to Judaism, and he was trying to keep them in the Christian faith.

How is this a prophesy? If anything it is talking about past or present events to when it was written, not future events. I myself see this passage as more timeless than anything, and can be applied to past, present and future.

I don't know how you got a prophesy out of this. In basic terms all it says is that everyone falls short the glory of God, and if you read a little further, only through God's grace can we be saved. It then goes on to make other statements of faith and theological implications.

I only saw one prophesy about the end of times, verse 18. And it is a quote from 2 Peter mentioned above.

I don't see 2 Peter 2 as a prophesy, more of a warning from his own experiences in preaching. He probably saw how false prophets gathered members and logically assumed that there will be false prophets for the next generation. Even if this is a prophecy, there have been false preachers since Christianities existence, why do you say they are just now being fulfilled?

I found your quote. It is not from the Journal of Geology, but from an article published in Scientific American in 1940 (unfortunately not available on line), and is quoted on this site, "paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm", third paragraph in the Introduction. Most of these tracks appear to have been debunked and rejected even by the creationists themselves.

Howlingwolf

Never once did I say "light" itself can travel faster. It may have the same amount of speed but has many different ways to reach the earth faster. Same speed but different ways to reach the earth than what you claim.

No my questions and conclusions are valid. If the Big Bang did not happen how did the universe come about? Without a universe there is no evolution. how did it come about if there wasn't a Big bang? Abigenesis, If this did not happen then Where did we first start from? To have abiogenesis you had to have the Big bang happen. If abiogenesis did not happen the what organisms were the first to evolve and from what did that that organism evolve from if abiogenesis did not happen?

No I do not "assume" the Bible is true, I know it is true for a fact.

If you believe in morality it is from the Bible. If you are married, and believe in love it is from the Bible.

Because evolution cannot account for morality, marriage, or love. There is no justification for such things because they cannot be tested.

Also, you said YEC cannot do true science this is illogical fallacy you just made because Creationists assume the preconditions of intelligibility while being rational and consistent to do science that is correct.

Evolutionists "assume" the preconditions of intelligibility without having a logical explanation as to why they do and be rational and consistent. For them to do any science they have to take Biblical principles, do actually Evolutionists do the pernicious science which can lead to perplexity. And it is perplexity. Thus, makes evolutionists inconsistent within their worldview.

You ask me what foundation evolution is based upon but this automatically shows me that you did not understand logical reasoning that I stated. Re-read it.

This is a contradiction you just cannot see it. Which is actually really sad for a fallen christian.

1. You do not understand any of this scripture whatsoever, you missed the point totally by a mile.

2. How is Romans 1 a prophesy? I can see that you are willingly ignorant of what the Bible says.

3. See you do not even know how Romans 3 is a prophesy. lol. It is a shame that people do not comprehend things. Because of the way they look at through Evolutionary glasses. Shame.

Man you do not understand the Bible at all, You totally used 2 Peter 3:3-9 out of context and the same for all the others. Not being mean, just saying you cannot see due to your lack of knowledge.

Thank you for the source reference. The thing that impressed me about this article was that it was in a legitimate and widely recognized scientific journal.

I was aware that the alleged footprints in the paulaxy bed were eventually debunked. As to whether or not any, or even all, of the others were eventually debunked, that has no bearing on the subject I referred to. For my argument was not as to whether or not these footprints were real, but that their homonoid origin was rejected purely on the basis that this would not fit the theories that were currently accepted by the scientific community at large.

Um, Scientific America, although a great source for information, is not a scientific journal.

While it may be true, and it probably is, we have never found a fossil not in the strata dated to when that species was alive (i.e. we never found bunnies in the Cambrian).

Um, Scientific America, although a great source for information, is not a scientific journal. It is journal for laymen to keep up with scientific advances and new discoveries.



It is my guess that all such findings were eventually debunked. Although you didn't specifically state that these were real or not, you certainly implied that such findings are evidence for creation. I find it awful strange that you can recite such things from memory without knowing where it came from or the decade in which it was written. I find it shady behavior.

And I would say you don't tell the whole story when you say that they rejected hominid origins purely on the basis that it didn't fit the theory.

While it may be true, and it probably is, we have never found a fossil not in the strata dated to when that species was alive (i.e. we never found bunnies in the Cambrian). Given the accuracy of the theory thus far, why shouldn't we exhaust all other options before we humor the idea that humans are much older than what we originally thought, or even further by saying that the theory of evolution is wrong?

Well that explains why the article i was reading today in Scientific American seemed more like entertainment and sensationalism. One Neanderthal found with a wound made by a human spear and they postulate now that it was humans that wiped them out.

Isnt that because the dating of when a species was alive was ascertained by the age of the strata they were found in.