A Creationist Creed

[Steve Petersen]

If massive amounts of rain water fell to earth and if there were large reservoirs of subterranean water burst forth at the Flood, as YECs claim, doesn't that mean that the oceans were much more saline before the Flood? Does that data support that? How much salinity would have killed all living organisms in the seas (ala the Dead Sea?)

 

[Speedwell]

What matters is how the bible said it came to be. When you filter the bible through the religion of evolutionism scripture suffers.
The concept of total depravity is injured.

So? Only a problem for Calvinists, really.

 

[KWCrazy]

If massive amounts of rain water fell to earth and if there were large reservoirs of subterranean water burst forth at the Flood, as YECs claim, doesn't that mean that the oceans were much more saline before the Flood?

Who's to say there was ANY salinity in the seas before the flood?
That's part of the problem with using what we see now and presuming that the pre-flood world must have been much the same. We are told that the rainbow was God's promise to Noah that He would never again flood the world. Previous to that, then, there could have been no rainbows. Since rainbows are caused by the diffusion of light through water particles in the atmosphere, something in our atmospheric conditions had to have changed after the flood.

 

[-57]

If massive amounts of rain water fell to earth and if there were large reservoirs of subterranean water burst forth at the Flood, as YECs claim, doesn't that mean that the oceans were much more saline before the Flood? Does that data support that? How much salinity would have killed all living organisms in the seas (ala the Dead Sea?)

For example, consider the accumulated salt in the world's oceans. Evolutionists maintain that the seas--from whence our supposed ancestors generated--are at least three billion years old. However, the low concentration of salt in the oceans calls this great age into question.
If you're interested in the rest of the article you can click here.

 

[-57]

So? Only a problem for Calvinists, really.

I was responding to a Calvinist. If He's a true Calvinist he'll need to rethink his position.

 

[USincognito]

For example, consider the accumulated salt in the world's oceans. Evolutionists maintain that the seas--from whence our supposed ancestors generated--are at least three billion years old. However, the low concentration of salt in the oceans calls this great age into question.
If you're interested in the rest of the article you can click here.

The only problem is the sources cited by Creationists say there is only 100 years worth of aluminum in the oceans.

 

[Jimmy D]

For example, consider the accumulated salt in the world's oceans. Evolutionists maintain that the seas--from whence our supposed ancestors generated--are at least three billion years old. However, the low concentration of salt in the oceans calls this great age into question.
If you're interested in the rest of the article you can click here.

Why does it call the ocean's 'great age' into question? Do you think that the salinity should be higher or lower in an old earth model?

 

[USincognito]

Why does it call the ocean's 'great age' into question? Do you think that the salinity should be higher or lower in an old earth model?

-57 doesn't know that this argument is long debunked PRATT from Henry Morris.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221.html
Element Years to Accumulate
sodium 260,000,000
magnesium 45,000,000
silicon 8,000
potassium 11,000,000
copper 50,000
gold 560,000
silver 2,100,000
mercury 42,000
lead 2,000
tin 100,000
nickel 18,000
uranium 500,000

As the entry notes, Morris left off aluminum which gives an "age" of 100 years.

 

[JCFantasy23]

MOD HAT ON

Please remember to get along!

I see some flaming brewing on this thread...

Please consider this a reminder to not flame and stay on topic.

Further issues may result in thread cleans, closes or other staff actions.


The full list of site rules can be found here.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[MasonP]

The book of Revelation shows us what the earth will be like when Satan is left unchecked.

Your God obviously want's Satan to stick around to take the blame for his mistakes, for someone you think is so smart he comes across as anything but smart.
Do creationists ever wonder if their fantasy needs an update because it leaks like a sieve? all they ever do is defend.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What matters is how the bible said it came to be. When you filter the bible through the religion of evolutionism scripture suffers.

Yeah, fundamentalist literal readings of bronze age stories, usually don't play well together with the scientific facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who's to say there was ANY salinity in the seas before the flood?

The many sedimentary salt beneath the mediteranian sea, dating back millions of years, comes to mind.

That's part of the problem with using what we see now and presuming that the pre-flood world must have been much the same

The only problem here, is prefering bronze age stories over the actual observable facts.

We are told that the rainbow was God's promise to Noah that He would never again flood the world. Previous to that, then, there could have been no rainbows.

Which is absurd to the highest degree, off course.

Since rainbows are caused by the diffusion of light through water particles in the atmosphere, something in our atmospheric conditions had to have changed after the flood.

Or, there was no flood at all off course, and the rainbow-story is just the same nonsense as the flood story.

 

[KWCrazy]

The many sedimentary salt beneath the mediteranian sea, dating back millions of years, comes to mind.

Dated by whom?
If the earth was created by God 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, how could salt be older than that?
There are two theories of origination; neither of them are possible. The difference is that God is Lord of the impossible and in the absence of an authority superior to natural law the impossible cannot happen. So you believe in a spontaneous auto-origination of everything from nothing which is scientific nonsense, and we believe that we were created by God. God created everything in its mature state including the earth, which was enriched with all the natural resources we need to last until He returns. You believe that all living things came from a magical Frankencell millions of years ago and somehow mutated into all the various species of life. This would be laughed out of the scientific community if they had ANY alternative but to accept that God is real.

The only problem here, is prefering bronze age stories over the actual observable facts.

Really? You have a time machine and can observe history?
Now you're really talking nonsense.
We can't observe history. We can observe evidence in the present and SPECULATE about the past.\
If I showed you the remains of a 3,000 year old donkey, a 1,500 year old mule and a 100 year old horse you would arrange the remains and claim that the donkey evolved into the horse.
Your observations are only "right" until proven wrong.
These "Bronze aged stories" were affirmed by Christ a mere 2,017 or so years ago.

Which is absurd to the highest degree, off course.

Considering that MOST of us here have had very personal interactions with the Lord and had witnessed His miracles, we would say that absurdity belongs in your camp.

Or, there was no flood at all off course, and the rainbow-story is just the same nonsense as the flood story.

Who should we believe; you or God?
Hmmmm. Tough one.
I think... God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Dated by whom?

Math and observable geological processes.

If the earth was created by God 6,000 - 10,000 years ago

It wasn't. It formed som 4.6 billion years ago.

, how could salt be older than that?

If the Empire state building fits in my back pocket, how could it possibly be 381 meters high?

There are two theories of origination; neither of them are possible.

Actually, there are hundreds of stories of origination. About the same amount as there are religious creation myths.

The models of science however, which are actually based on data observed in the real world instead of on "dreams" and "visions" and "revelations", are not just mere "stories". They are testable models of reality.

The difference is that God is Lord of the impossible and in the absence of an authority superior to natural law the impossible cannot happen.

Actually.... the impossible can't happen by definition.

So you believe in a spontaneous auto-origination of everything from nothing

No, I don't.

God created everything in its mature state including the earth, which was enriched with all the natural resources we need to last until He returns

How do you know? Note the word "know". I'm not asking you what you believe - you've already said what you believe.

You believe that all living things came from a magical Frankencell millions of years ago and somehow mutated into all the various species of life.

If you are talking about the theory of biological evolution, then I'ld have to say that that model is the best model known at this point with the highest explanatory power. One of the most solid, well-evidenced models in all of science.

ps: common ancestry is a genetic fact. Evolution theory explains the mechanism by which speciation happens. That life has a common ancestor is a fact.

This would be laughed out of the scientific community if they had ANY alternative but to accept that God is real.

Ken Miller, Francis Collins and many many many others are devout christians and well-respected evolutionary biologists, who would tell you to stop spreading such nonsense.

Really? You have a time machine and can observe history?

I don't need one.
Just like we don't need to have a time machine to go observe your conception by watching your parents have sex.

Nope, all we need is a sample of your and their DNA. That data is enough to determine if your parents are your biological parents.

Now you're really talking nonsense.

No. The nonsense is the idea that we can't investigate events of the past by analysing the data currently available.

If that were true, not a SINGLE crime would ever be solved. Ever.
Events of the past leave evidence behind that you can observe and analyse in the present.

Someone walked here:

There was a fire here:

A car went off road here:

We can't observe history. We can observe evidence in the present and SPECULATE about the past.\

And we can test our "speculations".

If I showed you the remains of a 3,000 year old donkey, a 1,500 year old mule and a 100 year old horse you would arrange the remains and claim that the donkey evolved into the horse.

I might have done it that way when I was 5 years old...

These "Bronze aged stories" were affirmed by Christ a mere 2,017 or so years ago.

So says the bronze age story.

Considering that MOST of us here have had very personal interactions with the Lord and had witnessed His miracles, we would say that absurdity belongs in your camp.

Believers from every religion claim such things.
I bet that when a hindu tells you that he had a conversation with Visjnoe, you wouldn't believe him, right?

Why not?

Who should we believe; you or God?

The evidence.

Hmmmm. Tough one.
I think... God.

No. The evidence.