6 Day Creation Is A Lie Because.....

[Follower of Christ]

Everyone interested please present your proof of evolution in a manner that a layman as myself and many others here can understand.
In others words, IN COMMON, NON-TECHNICAL ENGLISH

And please present FACTS, not meaningless conjecture/speculation

I am a 6 day creationist and believe my God did not have to distort the facts, He did it just like He said He did.

Other 6 day creationists, just give me an AMEN .....



NO ONE LINERS
These are a waste of time and space.

EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS WHY YOUR EVIDENCE PROVES THE BIBLES ACCOUNT OF 6 DAYS IS INNACURATE....




PS;

I started this thread in an attempt to gather all the information out there AGAINST 6 day creation into one thread on this topic.

Threads like Misinterpreting Genesis, Startlight and a young earth, Creationism, A question of interpretaion, all have good posts, but if they were all gathered into one, it would be easier to keep track of the discussion.
Can we at least agree on that ???

 

[Follower of Christ]

See, this is a waste of posting space, you just say something and everyone is supposed to think you are brilliant.

TELL US WHY IT IS INCONSISTANT WITH THE LITERAL BIBICAL ACCOUNT
Unless of course you have NO idea.

 

[Follower of Christ]

chickenman, did you show ANY proof or just continue to try to make yourself sound intelligent?

Proof would include actual EVIDENCE, not just some general comment.

I actually think, after seeing previous evidence, that noone has absolute proof or this topic would have been dead long ago.

If you cant present ACTUAL EVIDENCE (SPECIFIC), please stop wasting space here.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Today at 08:54 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #5

chickenman, did you show ANY proof or just continue to try to make yourself sound intelligent?

He's not trying to make himself sound intelligent. He is intelligent.

Proof would include actual EVIDENCE, not just some general comment.

I actually think, after seeing previous evidence, that noone has absolute proof or this topic would have been dead long ago.

If you cant present ACTUAL EVIDENCE (SPECIFIC), please stop wasting space here.

Hold on while I contact H.G. Wells and we can go back in time with his Time Machine. If we hit a wall at 6000 years, we'll know you were right.

Have you ever considered Anger Management classes?

 

[Follower of Christ]

THANK YOU TROODON, ESPECIALLY FOR BEING A LITTLE THOROUGH..

Since you presented things I have already seen I am not sure anyone wants to see a 2 page response.
I assume, as you have shown, that all of our information is second hand at best. Unless, of course, someone wants to slap some credentials up on the table.
Myself, I have none. So anything I ever state is to be taken with a grain of salt.
I would like to comment on a couple things, though.


Radiometric Dating:
The information I have seen on this leaves me thinking that it is guesswork at best.
Obviously a long list of proposed errors by many sources in this dating method could be presented.


2) Physiological similarities:
This one has always confused me as to its supposed proof of evolution.
In creating cars, common parts and ideas are used from design to design.
I fail to see how this is not just as easily shown to be proof of Intelligent Design. Unless of course ''bias'' in thrown into the mix. And yes, I am biased in my opinion as well.


3) Organization of the fossil record- Again, we have here a point where many inconsistancies on your ''Geologic Column'' could be shown.
I could list so many sites that debunk this type of ''evidence'', it would take days to go thru.



4) Microevolution- Your issue with the term KINDS is irrelevant.
Everone acts as if all these categories of species were here from the dawn of time.
In Levitcus, the bat is called an "OPH" in hebrew in a long list of birds.
Obviously all these distictions in species came along at some later period.
A ''kind'' is just that. A rabbit is a rabbit, a horse is a horse. Easy enough.

The fact that there is no hard definition of "kind'' to please the intellect in no way would show that a Rabbit will ever change over time into another ''kind'' of animal.

5) Non-funtioning pseudogenes:
You'll have to forgive my ignorance here, but I am still looking into this one.
I dont want to give any opinion until I have read more.
I will say that what I have read from both sides on this so far hasnt really impressed me as anything that would debunk a 6 day creation.
But I will get back to it.

6) Transitional fossils
I really wish you had listed one of the other ''many examples'' that are supposedly in existance.
Archaeopteryx would seem to be just another ''kind'' of bird that is extinct.
I can list lots of arguements showing this, but again, it is at least 3rd hand information.

7) John Goodman:
FINALLY, SOME REAL EVIDENCE :o

 

[Osiris]

Dinosaurs would become extinct in how many days if the earth was created 6000 years ago?

 

[notto]

Follower of Christ,

Since you expressed some expertise in breeding of rabbits, do you concider rabbits and hares to be of the same "kind"?

 

[Ezra]

Yesterday at 06:37 AM troodon said this in Post #8 Radiometric dating- Data found using known halflives of certain unstable isotopes indicates that the earth is at least 3.9 billion years old (that's about the age of the oldest known rocks). This is not necessarily evidence for evolution (although it is consistant with it) but it does disprove young earth creationism. 

Not quite.  It only seems to disprove a young earth.  For a scientific Chrisitan analysis of radiometric results check this link:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html


 

 

[Follower of Christ]

I started this thread in hopes that there would be some intelligent information presented in a single arena to eliminate the need to jump around so much.


What type of proof/evidence is this??

"Dinosaurs would become extinct in how many days if the earth was created 6000 years ago?"

Is this maybe some deep philosophical question designed to make us all ponder the nature of the universe or something?

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 06:55 PM notto said this in Post #11

Follower of Christ,

Since you expressed some expertise in breeding of rabbits, do you concider rabbits and hares to be of the same "kind"?

Right now if I responded, it would be an uneducated guess.
Let me look into exactly what a hare is.

IF it appears to simply be a variation of rabbit that merely can no longer inter-breed with the rest of the rabbit ''kind'', then I would go with yes at that point that it was a rabbit ''kind'' with information loss leading to its lack of inter-breeding ability.


But as I said, I dont know enough about the animal to make a call about it yet

 

[wildbrumby]

In regard to the title, Creation is not a lie.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Thanks again TROODON.

I will get togoether some of the things I have gotten from different web sources to see what you think.

As to the kinds, I believe your post above has cleared up my confusion as to why evolutionists are having such a problem with our definition of kinds.


I believe that the horse and the zebra are ancestors of the same animal

I do believe that God enabled animals to adapt and change (variation) to suit their environment. I fear using the word micro-evolution anymore as some have taken offense at my use of it.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 09:36 PM wildbrumby said this in Post #17

In regard to the title, Creation is not a lie.

You really need to read the beginning post to see what is meant by the thread title.

 

[notto]

Today at 10:05 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18

I believe that the horse and the zebra are ancestors of the same animal

So, why couldn't that ancestor have an ancestor that shows difference like what we find between a zebra and a horse? And the ancestors' ancestor, etc. This is macroevolution. There is no difference in the mechanism that would produce a zebra and a horse from a common ancestor or a human and a chimp from a common ancestor (and these ancestors ancestores from other common ancestors). (A horse has 64 Chromosomes and a Zebra only has 44 much like apes have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46). Zebras and horses have similar chromosome overlaps, much like the fused chromosome of apes that is apparent in humans.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I would think that this ancestor would be different from the horse and the zebra.
I do not deny what you would call speciation.

I dont think that the horse/zebra ''ancestor'' was some other kind of animal.
I think that they had a single KIND of horse-type animal and the zebra and the horse are both its varied decendants.
This would have been VERY easy change over 4500 years since the flood.



The original kind for rabbits would have probably been similar to my ''MUTT'' rabbits having the ability to produce MANY variations within its kind.
As offspring were born and spread out, variation occurred due to environmental conditions, location, separation and after the flood what you would call ''natural selection''.


Look at it like this;
In the beginning God created a bunch of KINDS of mutt animals that had the gene pool in each KIND to create many variations of their KIND (horse, zebra) This is VERY evident in my mutt rabbits).

 

[Ray Cho]

In my view, the most compelling scientific evidence for universal common ancestry is found in DNA sequence homologies: nonfunctional pseudogenes (mentioned earlier in this thread) and endogenous retroviruses.  A detailed discussion of the latter can be found on the following website:  www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Also, if you have an hour to spare at some point, the following link -- www.asa3.org/ASAradio/ASA2002Collins.ram -- is a audio recording of a talk given by Dr. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Research Institute and a committed Christian.



 

 

[Follower of Christ]

RAY CHO..

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!

 

[jayebrownlee]

I have only one thing to say and it is just about radio carbon dating and not the overall topic. I can't find a source for this and for that I apologise btu carbon dating is notoriously unreliable. There were some scientists (aggain i am sorry for lack of sources here) who carbon dated some rock that was about 40 years old (it was prodiced by a volcano with a date of formation firmly recorded in history) and managed to come up with a date through carbon dating of 100's of thousands of years (this is no exageration, I will try and find sources though0

Jay

 

[notto]

Today at 03:47 AM jayemcintyre said this in Post #24

I have only one thing to say and it is just about radio carbon dating and not the overall topic. I can't find a source for this and for that I apologise btu carbon dating is notoriously unreliable. There were some scientists (aggain i am sorry for lack of sources here) who carbon dated some rock that was about 40 years old (it was prodiced by a volcano with a date of formation firmly recorded in history) and managed to come up with a date through carbon dating of 100's of thousands of years (this is no exageration, I will try and find sources though0

Jay

The limitations of carbon dating (and other methods) are well known. It is only when the methods are used incorrectly (and in this case it was done purposely) that an incorrect date will be given. In the example you give, it was a stunt that was done to show the "ureliable" dating method, but it was known ahead of time that the date would be bad because the sample wasn't a proper sample for the dating method used.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

"14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction of xenoliths."

 

[Follower of Christ]

In other words they pick the best ''test'' date based on the type of rock they are testing...