3 final questions to Creationists

joshua 1 9 · Mar 11, 2017

-57 said:
They have found human and dinosaur fossils together.

There is no DNA so there is no way of knowing for sure those prints are human. Kat Kerr says that they were Angels that were here to keep an eye on the dinosaurs. The atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs was quite a bit different then the atmosphere today. So it is not possible for dinosaurs and people to live in the same climate. At the time there were only very small primates.

Speedwell · Mar 11, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
There is no DNA so there is no way of knowing for sure those prints are human. Kat Kerr says that they were Angels that were here to keep an eye on the dinosaurs. The atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs was quite a bit different then the atmosphere today. So it is not possible for dinosaurs and people to live in the same climate. At the time there were only very small primates.

Who knows? The artifact was never examined by any real exerts and is kept close by its owner, a creation "scientist" who sports a bogus PhD bought from a diploma mill. Even the creationist ministries (Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc.) are leery of it.

Original Happy Camper · Mar 11, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
There is no DNA so there is no way of knowing for sure those prints are human. Kat Kerr says that they were Angels that were here to keep an eye on the dinosaurs. The atmosphere at the time of the dinosaurs was quite a bit different then the atmosphere today. So it is not possible for dinosaurs and people to live in the same climate. At the time there were only very small primates.

If we are as the Bible says "let us create man in our image" then the above statement is implying that God is a primate, is this what you intended to imply?

cre8id · Mar 11, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Romans 1:19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Moses had all of God's plan of redemption. Look at Bishop Usshers book for example. There are almost 1,000 pages dealing with the history of the last 6,000 years. Bishop Usshers book only has three pages that talks about Genesis chapter one. The Bible is more a book of redemption and history then a book about science. As Gerold Schroeder tells us there are 32 verses in the first chapter of Genesis. In the Library of leading universities there maybe 200,000 books that give us a lot more detail about those 32 verses that we receive from Moses.

Moses tells us in Genesis 1:2 "the earth was without form, and void". Then Jeremiah 4:23 adds to this: "I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; And to the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking, And all the hills moved to and fro."

Now we see the mountains are quaking and the hills moved to and fro. If we go to our science book we see this is a pretty good discussion of plate tectonics. This is what happened in verse 1:9 "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

Dry land was created by Subduction: a geological process that takes place at convergent boundaries of tectonic plates where one plate moves under another and is forced or sinks due to gravity into the mantle. Regions where this process occurs are known as subduction zones.

On day one God created light, on day two God created the atmosphere, on day three God said: "let the dry land appear".

I agree that men are without excuse because they see God's power, glory, and irreducible complexity that comes from design (not random natural events or processes in God's creation)... but that does not mean I agree with the 'Standard' interpretation of the data involved to necessarily mean the creation took billions of years, or that there was a 'gap' between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. I am a conservative Christian and Young Earth Creationist. That does not mean I think that Creationists have all the answers any more than the atheistic or Theistic Evolutionists who have bought into the "deep time" thinking required by a uniformitarian POV (with some 'wiggle room' for 'local' catastrophies, of course) have all the answers. I think the Creationists are at least headed in the right direction and have the more proper grasp of scripture. That does not mean I think that "Old Earth" Christians are necessarily heretics or anything like that... they may be because some of them are so liberal that they deny essential doctrines of the Christian faith... but the age of the earth is not one of those.

The theistic philosophy is still one that basicly says, "OK, Nature, do your thing!" and then God steps in (when needed) to 'tweek' the otherwise slow natural process so it heads off in the right direction.

Funny, I don't recall the miracles that Jesus or His apostles doing (or the miracles in the OT) working that way. Exodus 20:11 - God created EVERYTHING in the equivalent of 6 earth days (from the perspective of the Earth's surface... as indicated in Genesis 1, where the Holy Spirit hovered above the face of the waters on earth).

joshua 1 9 · Mar 11, 2017

cre8id said:
creation took billions of years

God is outside of time. So for Him there is no time. I am mostly a dispensationalist and I believe that a day in Genesis is 1,000 years. I believe the age or era we live in began around 12,900 years ago. I believe the we will celebrate the 2,000 year anniversary or birthday of the church in the year 2029.

"Nanodiamond" Find Supports Comet Extinction Theory

cre8id · Mar 11, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
God is outside of time. So for Him there is no time. I am mostly a dispensationalist and I believe that a day in Genesis is 1,000 years. I believe the age or era we live in began around 12,900 years ago. I believe the we will celebrate the 2,000 year anniversary or birthday of the church in the year 2029.

"Nanodiamond" Find Supports Comet Extinction Theory

I completely agree that God is outside of time... He is completely transcendent to our space-time continuum of "reality". Yet, I have no real reason to relate that the 6 "earth days" of creation in Genesis were actually 1000 years long even though I am also a Pre-Mil Dispensationalists.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 11, 2017

Original Happy Camper said:
If we are as the Bible says "let us create man in our image" then the above statement is implying that God is a primate, is this what you intended to imply?

God became a part of His Creation. "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:14

joshua 1 9 · Mar 11, 2017

Speedwell said:
Who knows?

I am just giving an alternative explanation.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 11, 2017

Original Happy Camper said:
If we are as the Bible says "let us create man in our image"

I really do not know what this means. I can only guess at it. Only I am sure this is why we are different from the Animals.

ripple the car · Mar 12, 2017

My take;

Carnivorousness is a result of the Fall, which not only caused death, but cursed and changed a previously perfect creation. This might include the morphology and diets of created living things.

Fossils sometimes do occur out of order. Though infrequent, scientists call them anachronistic. My theory is that fossils occur in the order they do because the Flood, in eccense, began to take life under the water before it took much life on land. As the Flood levels rose, not only marine but also land creatures were effected, with fossils organized in sediment layers containing, usually, layers with creatures initially or later encased in Flood waters and silt.

I have always found the ideas behind the theories of human evolution to be deeply racist, and frankly, scientific judgements on what is and is not a "species" tend to be based more on how we humans describe life as opposed to how things truly are. Consider that categories like "phylum", "kingdom", "order", and " species" while often helpful and kind of accurate are at heart human constructs which are constantly morphing and rearranging themselves in cases where individual populations of animals are involved. Is such and such a species, subspecies, or its own genus? The answer may depend on who you ask.

JesusLovesOurLady said:
I am on the verge of becoming a creationist there just isn't enough evidence in favour of evolution accept for three big problems with creation that I will now ask creationists to explain:

1. Carnivores: Where do carnivores come from? It's clear that God made carnivore specifically for hunting and killing pray and not for consuming plants. But how could carnivores exist in a pre-fall world where there was peace between animals and no killing? How do carnivores fit into the picture?

2. The Fossil record: Why do fossils fall into a specific place in the fossil record? Why do we never Trilobites and dinosaurs in the same strata? Yes I know people have found dinosaur bones and other mammals with blood and tissue still in them, but why has no one found a dinosaur fossil and human fossil together?

3. The Neanderthal Genome: Creationist have been saying Neanderthals are really humans, but recent evidence show clearly that Neanderthals are there own species (See, for example: here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tevSkylmvXk) What are Neanderthals? How do they fit into the picture of Salvation? Or is there some evidence debunking the claim that Neanderthals are there own species with there own genome?

So those are my three final questions regarding creationism. If someone can answer these questions, I'll be more than happy to become a creationist. Maybe later on can bring up my geological questions regarding Old vs Young Earth creationism.

mark kennedy · Mar 13, 2017

JesusLovesOurLady said:
3. The Neanderthal Genome: Creationist have been saying Neanderthals are really humans, but recent evidence show clearly that Neanderthals are there own species (See, for example: here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tevSkylmvXk) What are Neanderthals? How do they fit into the picture of Salvation? Or is there some evidence debunking the claim that Neanderthals are there own species with there own genome?

Neanderthals were human, their remains have been found from modern Iraq to Spain indicating a migration pattern immediately following the flood. They had a cranial capacity 10% greater then our own and if they were alive today Neanderthals could interbreed with modern humans.

So those are my three final questions regarding creationism. If someone can answer these questions, I'll be more than happy to become a creationist. Maybe later on can bring up my geological questions regarding Old vs Young Earth creationism.

Geology and Cosmology are irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. All we know about the creation of the universe, 'heavens and the earth', is that it was in the beginning. Creation week may have happened at that time or billions of years later, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate one way or the other. What the Bible is clear about is that God created life in all it's vast array (Genesis 1:21) and puts special emphasis on how God created man (Gen. 1:27).

The word translated 'create' is used once for the creation of the universe, once for the creation of life in general and three times it's used in a parallelism at the heart of the emphasis:

Create (bara בָּרָא 1254) “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for ‘creating’ allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bring something or someone into existence is not the issue.

The writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)

And God created ( בָּרָא bara', H1254) great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)

So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them. (Gen 1:27)

There is a reason the Nicene Creed starts with three stanzas emphasizing God is Creator.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.(Nicene Creed)

Grace and peace,
Mark

Original Happy Camper · Mar 13, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
God became a part of His Creation. "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" John 1:14

Sorry but you did not answer the question that I posted.

If we are as the Bible says "let us create man in our image" then the above statement is implying that God is a primate, is this what you intended to imply?

joshua 1 9 · Mar 13, 2017

Original Happy Camper said:
If we are as the Bible says "let us create man in our image" then the above statement is implying that God is a primate

Just the opposite. God became a part of Creation. He infused a part of Himself into His creation. The part of us that is a reflection of God is the part that is different from all of the other primates. 2 Peter talks about: "natural brute beasts". This means to be without reason. God has given us wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

When we are born again we are a new creation in Christ, we can have the Mind of Christ and the Divine Thoughts of God.

DrBubbaLove · Mar 15, 2017

JesusLovesOurLady said:
I am on the verge of becoming a creationist there just isn't enough evidence in favour of evolution accept for three big problems with creation that I will now ask creationists to explain:

1. Carnivores: Where do carnivores come from? It's clear that God made carnivore specifically for hunting and killing pray and not for consuming plants. But how could carnivores exist in a pre-fall world where there was peace between animals and no killing? How do carnivores fit into the picture?

2. The Fossil record: Why do fossils fall into a specific place in the fossil record? Why do we never Trilobites and dinosaurs in the same strata? Yes I know people have found dinosaur bones and other mammals with blood and tissue still in them, but why has no one found a dinosaur fossil and human fossil together?

3. The Neanderthal Genome: Creationist have been saying Neanderthals are really humans, but recent evidence show clearly that Neanderthals are there own species (See, for example: here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tevSkylmvXk) What are Neanderthals? How do they fit into the picture of Salvation? Or is there some evidence debunking the claim that Neanderthals are there own species with there own genome?

So those are my three final questions regarding creationism. If someone can answer these questions, I'll be more than happy to become a creationist. Maybe later on can bring up my geological questions regarding Old vs Young Earth creationism.

Joining late - but where in the Creation stories do we get the idea there was "peace between animals"?
That seems a rather modern and predominately Protestant notion. As nothing is impossible with God, am also unclear why the obvious existence of carnivores represents a problem for the creationist view either way. Am comfortable believing He made both types of animals as part of the order of things (whether evolved or instantly created) and either way able to protect Adam from harm before his fall - and the removal of that protection part of the hardship resulting from the Fall.

Not sure why a strata question necessarily sways one to either creationism or evolution. Humans appear to have hunted animals know extinct and both evident in same strata for example. No telling what the cataclysm described in a global flood might also entail besides lots of water, or what all may have been done in that event with the strata. Again nothing impossible for God.

Science seems settled on the opinion neanderthals are a different species and some that we interbred with them. I remain convinced some of my extended family may belong in that group.

Sammy-San · May 25, 2017

Shempster said:
IMO, no other theory makes more sense than the gap theory.

Do you think before the Flood we had aurora lights?

Shempster · May 26, 2017

Superhero Sam said:
Do you think before the Flood we had aurora lights?

I have no clue and I only said that this theory makes more sense than creation 6,000 years ago or evolution.

Paul of Eugene OR · Jun 24, 2017

Gospel_van said:
Your claim is that Micro evolution + time = macro evolution.
This would require animals to add information to the genome? Do you have any examples of this?

You evolution deniers post stuff like that and you don't even tolerate a rigorous definition of information. Because when you do that, its easy to show addition of information to genomes.

You can add more time, but it doesn't mean more changes will happen. Take a crocodile for instance—very little changes have been made compared to the fossilized crocodiles and modern crocodiles. The same can be said about Jelly fish and dozens of other animals.

Just because a few forms out of millions stay constant over many ages, you deny that evolution has affected many other lines? That's not even logical. The sequence of land animals evolving into whales, for example, is pretty clear.

We probably don't see elephants fossilized near dinosaurs because 1.) these fossilizations are rather rare. 2.) they live in different environments.

You just made that stuff up. Dinosaurs were a vastly divergent set of animals, and they occupied all the niches taken up by the larger mammals of today. And you have to deny the dating methods to sustain your illogical claim . . . the dating methods agree with the geological layer methods to separate elephants from dinosaurs.

Are you a Christian?

Many, many of us who accept evolution are Christians. It is hurting the cause of Christ to equate being a Christian with denying the plain truths discovered by science. Scientists report in their histories of science over and over how religious people fought their advances in the past. By people who were as sincere and dedicated as yourself.

Job 33:6 · Jun 24, 2017

Gospel_van said:
2. Fossils don't really fall into a specific place. 99.9% of fossils are shells, the other 0.1% includes every mammal, every dinosaur, everything else we have found. Now, if you were to take 10 different types of sand, put them at the bottom of a big bottle and mix them up to randomize the order of the sand then add water and mix the bottle again something amazing happens—hydraulic sorting. The sands will group together according to density and make 10 layers of strata.

I'll try to be as nice as I can with this one. But geologic layers are not sorted by density. And ill just give a quick example off the top of my head. You can find dense rocks both above and below and slotted between other rocks.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/169/Moore/gifs/fig1.gif

Job 33:6 · Jun 24, 2017

and if you look closely at my last post, you can even see that fossils in the strata, correlate with their respective rock types. ie, you dont find terrestrial vertebrates in limestone, and you dont find deep ocean animals, like megalodons, in terrestrial environments (like in sandstones or igneous rocks).

Also, I am a geologist, been studying rocks for 10+ years. If anyone has any geology related questions, feel free to ask.

Job 33:6 · Jun 26, 2017

KomatiiteBIF said:
I'll try to be as nice as I can with this one. But geologic layers are not sorted by density. And ill just give a quick example off the top of my head. You can find dense rocks both above and below and slotted between other rocks.
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/169/Moore/gifs/fig1.gif

If you look at this column closely, you can actually make out the pattern caused by the trans and regressing sea (coal atop underclay, underclay atop shale, shale atop sandy shale, sandy shale atop sandstone, disconformity).

Good luck explaining that one YECs.

On the flip side, uniformitarian ideas offer a simple explanation of an ocean receding and transgressing, just as we see in todays world, with rocks being formed by deposits that are relative to their respective environment (sandstone formed by deposition of sand, shales formed by shallow marine silts and clays, limestones formed in deep marine environments by carbonaceous deposits etc. Just as we see happening today). Easy Peasy.

3 final questions to Creationists

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

One of GODS Children I am a historicist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Natura non facit saltum

One of GODS Children I am a historicist

Well-Known Member

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist

Newbie

ImJustMe

Finally Old Enough

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency