God did not create from nothing

dlamberth · Tuesday at 12:03 PM

-57 said:
For example the flood of Noah buried the dinosaurs...and they are not 65+ MY's old.

Where I start is that the Earth itSelf, as created by God, does not show any evidence of a Biblical Noah flood.

Platte · Tuesday at 12:29 PM

-57 said:
Many people don't realize that science as well as the bible agree with a young earth.

For example the flood of Noah buried the dinosaurs...and they are not 65+ MY's old.

Great point - here was Google AI's response about the Flood

This was Google AI:

Within the biblical framework, a global flood explains the fossil record completely.
If the flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis, it would serve as the primary engine for creating the massive layers of fossils we see around the world today. Instead of representing millions of years of gradual evolution, Creation scientists look at the fossil record as a single, catastrophic snapshot of a world being destroyed over the course of one year.
Here is how the biblical model explains the key features of the fossil record:

1. Rapid Burial and Preservation
Fossils do not form under normal conditions because dead animals rot or get eaten by scavengers before they can turn to stone. To make a fossil, an organism must be buried instantly under deep mud and sediment to shut out oxygen.
The Flood Explanation: The opening of the "fountains of the great deep" and torrential rainfall would cause massive, continent-wide mudslides, underwater avalanches, and volcanic upheavals. This would instantly trap and suffocate billions of creatures, creating the perfect conditions for widespread fossilization.

2. The Order of the Layers (Ecological Zonation)
One of the biggest questions is why fossils are found in a specific order—such as sea creatures at the bottom, amphibians higher up, and mammals near the top. Within the flood model, this order is explained by habitat and mobility, rather than the passage of time:
Bottom Layers (Deep Sea): The ocean floor ecosystems would be overwhelmed first by shifting underwater plates. This explains why the lowest fossil layers are overwhelmingly filled with marine invertebrates like trilobites.
Middle Layers (Coastlines and Swamps): As the waters rose, coastal areas and low-lying swamps would be buried next, trapping amphibians and slow-moving reptiles.
Top Layers (High Ground): Highly mobile land mammals and birds would naturally flee to the highest elevations to escape the rising waters. They would be the last to drown and be buried, placing them in the topmost layers of sediment.

3. Marine Fossils on Mountaintops
Marine fossils, such as seashells and ancient whale bones, are found at the peaks of major mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Rockies, and the Alps.
The Flood Explanation: Genesis states that the waters covered all the high hills under the heavens. In a flood model, these mountain regions were either underwater during the cataclysm, or the mountains themselves were pushed upward by tectonic forces near the end of the flood year while the sediment layers were still soft and wet.

4. "Polystrate" Fossils
Geologists frequently find fossilized tree trunks standing completely upright, cutting through multiple different layers of rock.
The Flood Explanation: In a slow-evolution model, each rock layer takes thousands or millions of years to form, meaning the top of the tree would have rotted away long before the upper layers accumulated. In the flood model, these trees were violently uprooted by floodwaters and deposited vertically in rapidly accumulating mud layers during the cataclysm.

Platte · Tuesday at 12:34 PM

Hans Blaster said:
What about the science of radioactive decay is "fiction"?

Really - Radiometric dating is as bad as Carbon dating. Many assumption, little known data, imaginary results.
And it realies on the always unrealiable assumption: Symmetry.

It is impossible to know with absolute certainty the exact amount of parent and daughter isotopes present when the rock originally formed.

its bad....but defintely the best tool we have for rocks and such for our best guestimate of its age.

Oh and just to show that I am not anti-science. I'm 57 years old and when you get into your 50s you have use the bathroom so much more often and with little notice. Science does a great job of explaining why that is - with great detail. (Thank you science)

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 1:05 PM

dlamberth said:
Where I start is that the Earth itSelf, as created by God, does not show any evidence of a Biblical Noah flood.

If what you say is true, then the Biblical Noah flood was a miracle handled miraculously.

Before, during, and after.

Does Egypt, in your opinion, show signs of the plague of hailstones?

If not, why?

And please ... do something different and tell me SPECIFICALLY why.

-57 · Tuesday at 1:19 PM

dlamberth said:
Where I start is that the Earth itSelf, as created by God, does not show any evidence of a Biblical Noah flood.

I totally disagree.

There are sandstone formations that cover continents..extending to other continents which scream worlds wide flood.,
The strata in the Grand Canyon show flood deposits. The "instant" smooth transition between layers with no erosion show a rapid deposit rather than millions of years deposition rate.

There's a lot more.

Besides that the bible says there was a world wide flood.

-57 · Tuesday at 1:24 PM

Platte said:
Great point - here was Google AI's response about the Flood

This was Google AI:

Within the biblical framework, a global flood explains the fossil record completely.
If the flood occurred exactly as described in Genesis, it would serve as the primary engine for creating the massive layers of fossils we see around the world today. Instead of representing millions of years of gradual evolution, Creation scientists look at the fossil record as a single, catastrophic snapshot of a world being destroyed over the course of one year.
Here is how the biblical model explains the key features of the fossil record:

1. Rapid Burial and Preservation
Fossils do not form under normal conditions because dead animals rot or get eaten by scavengers before they can turn to stone. To make a fossil, an organism must be buried instantly under deep mud and sediment to shut out oxygen.
The Flood Explanation: The opening of the "fountains of the great deep" and torrential rainfall would cause massive, continent-wide mudslides, underwater avalanches, and volcanic upheavals. This would instantly trap and suffocate billions of creatures, creating the perfect conditions for widespread fossilization.

2. The Order of the Layers (Ecological Zonation)
One of the biggest questions is why fossils are found in a specific order—such as sea creatures at the bottom, amphibians higher up, and mammals near the top. Within the flood model, this order is explained by habitat and mobility, rather than the passage of time:
Bottom Layers (Deep Sea): The ocean floor ecosystems would be overwhelmed first by shifting underwater plates. This explains why the lowest fossil layers are overwhelmingly filled with marine invertebrates like trilobites.
Middle Layers (Coastlines and Swamps): As the waters rose, coastal areas and low-lying swamps would be buried next, trapping amphibians and slow-moving reptiles.
Top Layers (High Ground): Highly mobile land mammals and birds would naturally flee to the highest elevations to escape the rising waters. They would be the last to drown and be buried, placing them in the topmost layers of sediment.

3. Marine Fossils on Mountaintops
Marine fossils, such as seashells and ancient whale bones, are found at the peaks of major mountain ranges like the Himalayas, the Rockies, and the Alps.
The Flood Explanation: Genesis states that the waters covered all the high hills under the heavens. In a flood model, these mountain regions were either underwater during the cataclysm, or the mountains themselves were pushed upward by tectonic forces near the end of the flood year while the sediment layers were still soft and wet.

4. "Polystrate" Fossils
Geologists frequently find fossilized tree trunks standing completely upright, cutting through multiple different layers of rock.
The Flood Explanation: In a slow-evolution model, each rock layer takes thousands or millions of years to form, meaning the top of the tree would have rotted away long before the upper layers accumulated. In the flood model, these trees were violently uprooted by floodwaters and deposited vertically in rapidly accumulating mud layers during the cataclysm.

Thank you for that.

For people to simply brush aside the flood....because there science teacher or pastor told them there was no flood...is simply being ignorant.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 1:26 PM

-57 said:
Besides that the bible says there was a world wide flood.

-57 · Tuesday at 1:47 PM

AV1611VET said:

It's amazing how christians can believe that a man who died a brutal death on the cross...pierced in his side...placed into a tomb where the process of death...rigor mortis, blood pooling and the other decay process that go along with it....could resurrect from the dead on day 3.

These christians actually believe this scientifically impossibility actually happened....BUT.....have no faith that the same God/man could create the earth in six days in all their vast array just as the book of Genesis says He did.

sjastro · Tuesday at 2:05 PM

Platte said:
I don't agree that something is science if its not....I never said the earth was 6000 years old - but my opinion of science or science fiction is not based on my Creation views....though its funny how science and of course History do support my Creation views.

Using 2 science fiction models to date the same object doesnt really help anyone....however there is nothing wrong with having a best guess of something. Thats what humans do and is very helpful for us to make the best possible decisions - "guesstimation" is a good thing.

2 wrongs dont a right make - the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days.

The first sentence in your post stated this "....I never said the earth was 6000 years old", while the last sentence "- the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days."
So which one is it, is the Earth 6000 years old or isn't it? I've heard of covering one's bases but this is ridiculous.

In between these bookends of contradiction things aren't much better, 2 wrongs don't make a right so explain how 2 wrongs can produce errors to the same magnitude.
Better still explain how 3 wrongs don't make a right when two independent methods are used to test three components of various meteorites.

Why is RC dating used in the toolkit of forensic science if it is wrong in establishing when a murder was committed and is confirmed by numerous other forensic tests?
Are these other tests used to establish the time of death also wrong?

Test / Procedure	What Is Measured	Typical Purpose in Determining Time of Death	Strengths	Limitations
Radiocarbon Dating (including Bomb-Pulse Radiocarbon)	Carbon-14 content of bone, teeth, or other tissues	Determines whether remains are modern or ancient; may estimate year of birth from tooth enamel	Independent laboratory method; useful for unidentified remains	Usually does not directly provide the exact year of death
DNA Identification	Genetic profile	Links remains to a known missing person and constrains date of death to after the last confirmed sighting	Can strongly narrow the possible time frame	Requires reference samples or relatives
Forensic Entomology	Insect species and developmental stages	Estimates post-mortem interval	Can be highly accurate in suitable conditions	Requires insect colonization and environmental data
Decomposition Analysis	Degree of soft tissue decay	Estimates how long the body has been dead	Useful in early and intermediate stages	Strongly affected by environment
Taphonomic Analysis	Changes to remains caused by environment, scavengers, burial conditions, etc.	Estimates post-mortem interval and burial history	Useful for skeletonized remains	Often produces broad date ranges
Bone Weathering Analysis	Cracking, flaking, bleaching, and other bone surface changes	Estimates length of environmental exposure	Useful for long-term exposure cases	Weather conditions vary significantly
Soil Chemistry Analysis	Chemical changes caused by decomposition	Estimates duration of decomposition at a site	Can corroborate other methods	Influenced by local soil conditions
Plant Root Growth Analysis	Roots growing through or around remains	Provides a minimum burial interval	Useful for long-buried remains	Growth rates vary by species and environment
Stratigraphic Examination	Position of remains within soil layers	Determines relative age of burial	Useful in buried remains	Usually provides relative rather than absolute dates
Associated Artifacts and Clothing	Age and manufacture dates of items found with remains	Establishes earliest or latest possible date of death	Often provides valuable contextual evidence	Artifacts may not have been deposited at the time of death
Medical Implants and Devices	Serial numbers and manufacturing records	Assists identification and constrains date of death	Can provide precise documentary evidence	Only available in some cases
Historical and Missing-Person Records	Documentary evidence	Narrows likely period of death	Can provide strong corroboration	Depends on successful identification

Ophiolite · Tuesday at 2:09 PM

-57 said:
There are sandstone formations that cover continents..extending to other continents which scream worlds wide flood

By all means convince me by providing the evidence that (a) the sandstone formations do cover continents, (b) that the formations extend to other continents (c) and, most important evidence that all of those sandstone formations have the composition, grain shape and angularity, size distribution, matrix material, cementation, pore structure, bedding planes, internal structures consistent with a flood.

-57 said:
The strata in the Grand Canyon show flood deposits

This obsession with the Grand Canyon on the part of YECs simply demonstrates that you have never got past reading a basic children's text book on geology, since it is so often used as a convenient example of geological features and stratigraphic columns.

Flood deposits are common worldwide. The problem of associating them with a worldwide flood is that they are of many varied ages, reflect different types of flood, are of different magnitudes and are better explained by a series of discrete local events. Do take the time to study some proper material on these and abandon these silly attempts to misrepresent science and its findings.

You want to believe in Noah's flood as a global event. No problem, go right ahead, but do so as a matter of faith, not by indulging in an attempt to twist facts to align them with that faith. It is unseemly.

Your post and mine are off topic for this thread. If you wish to reply to this post, start a new thread on the subject. i shall not reply here to any response you make here.

Platte · Tuesday at 2:41 PM

sjastro said:
The first sentence in your post stated this "....I never said the earth was 6000 years old", while the last sentence "- the Earth was created 6000 years ago and took 6 days."
So which one is it, is the Earth 6000 years old or isn't it? I've heard of covering one's bases but this is ridiculous.

I certainly believe God created everything functional - using a modelistic approach - a little complicated so I'll spare those details.

I believe Adam was created as a functional human - not a baby - perhaps an 18 year old male. I believe there were full grown trees producing fruit from the beginning. There were rivers and hills from Creation - the earth was fully functionally when it was created.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 3:39 PM

-57 said:
It's amazing how christians can believe that a man who died a brutal death on the cross...pierced in his side...placed into a tomb where the process of death...rigor mortis, blood pooling and the other decay process that go along with it....could resurrect from the dead on day 3.

These christians actually believe this scientifically impossibility actually happened....BUT.....have no faith that the same God/man could create the earth in six days in all their vast array just as the book of Genesis says He did.

As my pastor pointed out, Paul makes a good point here ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Not "might be," but "shall be."

And of course, who is the one in the Bible that does the turning?

-57 · Tuesday at 3:49 PM

Ophiolite said:
By all means convince me by providing the evidence that (a) the sandstone formations do cover continents, (b) that the formations extend to other continents (c) and, most important evidence that all of those sandstone formations have the composition, grain shape and angularity, size distribution, matrix material, cementation, pore structure, bedding planes, internal structures consistent with a flood.

Lots of studying there...but, you might want to start here...
The continuity of the basal Sauk sandstone layer across North America is a testament to the Flood, specifically to the extent and uniformity of the first marine transgression of the continents. In many places, the base of this layer is also known as the Great Unconformity. This erosional surface has been mapped across multiple continents and is accepted as a global phenomenon.4 The basal Sauk Megasequence also coincides with the Cambrian Explosion, where fossils representing most animal phyla suddenly appear in the rock record. Most creationists recognize this sandstone layer as the Flood’s first extensive deposit. Ref

Ophiolite said:
This obsession with the Grand Canyon on the part of YECs simply demonstrates that you have never got past reading a basic children's text book on geology, since it is so often used as a convenient example of geological features and stratigraphic columns.

Flood deposits are common worldwide. The problem of associating them with a worldwide flood is that they are of many varied ages, reflect different types of flood, are of different magnitudes and are better explained by a series of discrete local events. Do take the time to study some proper material on these and abandon these silly attempts to misrepresent science and its findings.

The flood would have started out as many local events...eventually covering the entire planet.

Ophiolite said:
You want to believe in Noah's flood as a global event. No problem, go right ahead, but do so as a matter of faith, not by indulging in an attempt to twist facts to align them with that faith. It is unseemly.

It's not about twisting facts...but rather correct scientific observations.

The world wide flood was real.

Ophiolite said:
Your post and mine are off topic for this thread. If you wish to reply to this post, start a new thread on the subject. i shall not reply here to any response you make here.

Platte · Tuesday at 4:22 PM

AV1611VET said:
As my pastor pointed out, Paul makes a good point here ...

2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Not "might be," but "shall be."

And of course, who is the one in the Bible that does the turning?

Fables = science fiction

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 4:45 PM

Platte said:
Fables = science fiction

I have to admit, you make a good point.

sjastro · Tuesday at 5:18 PM

Platte said:
I certainly believe God created everything functional - using a modelistic approach - a little complicated so I'll spare those details.

I believe Adam was created as a functional human - not a baby - perhaps an 18 year old male. I believe there were full grown trees producing fruit from the beginning. There were rivers and hills from Creation - the earth was fully functionally when it was created.

Your posts are symptomatic of cognitive dissonance since you are unable to show science equals science fiction when it contradicts creationism.

Since AI is a flavour in this post I'll let it explain why YEC is particularly prone to cognitive dissonance.

Yes, Young Earth Creationism (YEC) relies on rationalizations that align with the psychological concept of Cognitive Dissonance. Proponents face a constant clash between literal interpretations of the Bible (e.g., Earth being approximately 6,000 years old) and overwhelming scientific evidence. To relieve the mental discomfort, they engage in specific resolution strategies. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Psychologists describe cognitive dissonance as the psychological distress experienced when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. [6]
To manage the conflict between YEC and modern science, proponents regularly use these three cognitive processes:

Compartmentalization: Separating religious faith from the scientific method. Many YECs treat the Bible as the "primary source of truth" and science as a fallible, man-made secondary source. [3, 7]

Reinterpretation or Dismissal: Discarding conflicting evidence. If scientific dating or biological evidence (such as genetics or radioactive decay) contradicts their framework, they may dismiss the findings as flawed interpretations or conspiracy. [8, 9, 10]

Invoking the Supernatural: Explaining away inconsistencies by claiming God actively established the world with the appearance of age (e.g., light created in transit, or fossils intentionally placed to test faith). [11]

Through these Cognitive Dissonance reduction tactics, YECs successfully maintain consistency within their worldview despite its divergence from mainstream scientific consensus. [12, 13, 14]

[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com
[2] https://www.verywellmind.com
[3] https://www.reddit.com
[4] https://www.ebsco.com
[5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[6] https://www.youtube.com
[7] https://www.reddit.com
[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[9] https://www.reddit.com
[10] https://www.reddit.com
[11] https://www.reddit.com
[12] https://www.psychologytoday.com
[13] https://www.youtube.com
[14] https://www.cliffsnotes.com

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 6:41 PM

Platte said:
Really - Radiometric dating is as bad as Carbon dating. Many assumption, little known data, imaginary results.
And it realies on the always unrealiable assumption: Symmetry.

I didn't say "dating". I said "radioactive decay".

What part of radioactive decay is "fiction" or based on "little known data" or "imaginary results"?

And what do you think "symmetry" means?

Platte said:
It is impossible to know with absolute certainty the exact amount of parent and daughter isotopes present when the rock originally formed.

its bad....but defintely the best tool we have for rocks and such for our best guestimate of its age.

Oh and just to show that I am not anti-science. I'm 57 years old and when you get into your 50s you have use the bathroom so much more often and with little notice. Science does a great job of explaining why that is - with great detail. (Thank you science)

dlamberth · Tuesday at 7:23 PM

-57 said:
Lots of studying there...but, you might want to start here...
The continuity of the basal Sauk sandstone layer across North America is a testament to the Flood, specifically to the extent and uniformity of the first marine transgression of the continents. In many places, the base of this layer is also known as the Great Unconformity. This erosional surface has been mapped across multiple continents and is accepted as a global phenomenon.4 The basal Sauk Megasequence also coincides with the Cambrian Explosion, where fossils representing most animal phyla suddenly appear in the rock record. Most creationists recognize this sandstone layer as the Flood’s first extensive deposit. Ref

Does IRC have any science to back up any of this? I seriously doubt it.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 8:07 PM

sjastro said:
Your posts are symptomatic of cognitive dissonance since you are unable to show science equals science fiction when it contradicts creationism.

You mean like we being mutant copy errors, made in the image and likeness of God?

Platte · 2026-06-03T07:27:34-0500

sjastro said:
Your posts are symptomatic of cognitive dissonance since you are unable to show science equals science fiction when it contradicts creationism.

There is no connection to what you call science, that is really science fiction, and creationism. Its labeled on its own merit.

sjastro said:
Since AI is a flavour in this post I'll let it explain why YEC is particularly prone to cognitive dissonance.

I'm not YEC

God did not create from nothing

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Reconstruction 3 will come

Senior Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads