Answers In Genesis Teaching contrary doctrines to Scripture!

[gluadys]

I mean the Bible in greek, play with your kids, don't by any means stop playing with them to come on here, enjoy eacother while you have eachother, of course I need to follow that advice myself. Paul was a devout Jew, and later in his life he some how learn't greek, probably to preach. Does the greek interpretation of the NT support your claims?

Paul spoke Greek from the time he was a child. He was a citizen of the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus. (Which also made him a Roman citizen.) Before he came to Jersualem to study under the rabbis there, he was already as fluent in Greek as in Hebrew.

In fact, so many Jews in the Diaspora had lost their familiarity with Hebrew, that the scriptures were translated into Greek for them (Septuagint). I don't have any reason to think that Paul had to learn Hebrew as a second language. Some Jewish families would speak Hebrew at home, and perhaps Paul's did. But he was certainly exposed to Greek daily outside his home.

 

[grmorton]

Paladin, I read the quote you posted but do not see where it says that earth is in the center of anything.

The idea that earth is "prime real estate" seems to speak more of fine design and attention that God took in creating earth to sustain human life. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

The greater problem with that quote is the connection of human sin with cosmologic redemption.

DM

Here it is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1006cosmology.asp:

In a number of other areas, too, the Smoller-Temple paper gets into issues that Humphreys has already published on in the creationist literature. For instance, their consideration of the shock waves in such an expanding cosmos was raised by Humphreys as a possible explanation of the ‘concentric shells’ distribution of the galaxies. (This is powerful evidence that there is indeed a center (and hence an edge) to the universe, and, more than that, it indicates that our galaxy must be somewhere near that center.3)

 

[Delta One]

PaladinValer,

More reasons for me not to trust AiG...

... while you and everyone else ignores the evidence I presented from Dr Humphreys' book Starlight and Time that provides Biblical evidence that the earth, and subsquently our galaxy, was created at, or close to the centre of the universe.

You are just not trusting them out of ignorance - not by providing any evidence as to where and why they are wrong.

Vance,

I don't trust AiG on science issue simply because they admit right up front that they are not going to do their scientific research in a scientific way. When you start with the conclusion and go out and seek support, you are no longer doing science, and the results will not be scientifically sound. They are doing apologetics and calling it science.

They do not admit that they don't do their research in a "scientific way". They admit that openly and clearly that all of their science is BASED on the Bible being the infallible Word of God and that Genesis should be taken at face value.

As I have explained and proved many times, all scientists have their starting foundations from which their science is built on. With reference to events in the distant unobservable past, which is what this whole debate about, preconceptional beliefs about what happened (or world-views) play an important part. Evolutionists may discuss how evolution happened, but they are not prepared to abandon their foundation that the origin all life can be explained by natural processes. Likewise, creationists are prepared to change their views as to how God may have created the universe in six literal days about 6,000 years ago as described in Genesis -- but they are NOT prepared to leave the foundation that it did happen.

In HISTORICAL SCIENCE Vance, that is what we are talking about. You must understand the difference between process and historical science and how they function if any of us are to get anything from this debate. Evolutionists likewise go out and look for evidence that supports it's starting assumption that all life can be explained naturalistically. When a radiometric date is out of "the correct ball park" (i.e. not what the scientist initially thought it should be), it is not published and rarely are the results fully explained.

If you read nothing else in this post than read this:
The ONLY difference between evolution and creation is the different interpretations of the same evidence using the same science!

Whilst they are an apologetics organisation, they are all fully trained scientists - most with Ph.Ds in their respective fields. Evolution destroys the very foundations that the Gospel relies on to stand (I find this disturbing that you don't appear to care) so AiG refute evolution by using the evidence and by showing how the evidence makes no sense when interpreted through the evolutionary interpretation or world-view.

Once again, you appear not to have a full and clear understanding of what science is, what it can and can't prove and it's limits.

 

[ChrisS]

Paul spoke Greek from the time he was a child. He was a citizen of the Greek-speaking city of Tarsus. (Which also made him a Roman citizen.) Before he came to Jersualem to study under the rabbis there, he was already as fluent in Greek as in Hebrew.

In fact, so many Jews in the Diaspora had lost their familiarity with Hebrew, that the scriptures were translated into Greek for them (Septuagint). I don't have any reason to think that Paul had to learn Hebrew as a second language. Some Jewish families would speak Hebrew at home, and perhaps Paul's did. But he was certainly exposed to Greek daily outside his home.

Yeah and with greece conquering Jerusalem not to long before then I'd have to agree with you.

 

[Dark Matter]

Here it is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1006cosmology.asp:

Oh my...I mean I almost fell out of my chair in disbelief! Is this still what YEC is reduced to!!??

This article basically said that since there was an article published (which I have not read) that argued something that challenged big bang cosmology, and further agreed with Humphrey's Starlight and Time (which I have read), therefore AiG states, and I quote:
"The very fact that such a prestigious establishment journal now publishes such a major departure from (and challenge to) these very assumptions should be incredibly sobering for those who have been prepared to depart from the obvious and straightforward words of the Bible to bow to establishment thinking on the big bang and its billions of years."

It just goes to provide further evidence that quacks like Humphreys have no idea how the scientific establishment works. It seems he really actually believes that because a prestigious journal publishes a paper which calls big bang cosmology into question (I'm for now granting that all this is accurate) therefore big bang cosmology is actually in danger, and further, those who accept the evidence for big bang cosmology will be greatly sobered by this article!

I think these guys think this way because they feel the desperate need, as fundamentalists, to restrict peoples freedom to ponder ideas. Therefore, when they see a scientific journal article calling a theory into question, they actually believe that therefore the scientific community as abandoned the idea!! Whereas in the real world, the freedom to question and ponder ideas is food for growth and certainty in knowledge. A great example of this is ICR's discussion boards. They actually ban anyone from offering or discussing any idea that is not in harmony with YECism. I never would have believed that the church would live in fear of ideas and discussion of evidence. What shameful disgrace the YEC movement has brought to historical church.

Well, the article is now a year and a half old. I wonder, has Humphrey's written any public ponderings why the article had minimal impact and why big bang cosmology is still held with such certainty?

In sadness for the foothold that such banality has been granted by the body of our Lord,
Dark Matter

 

[Vance]

I mean the Bible in greek, play with your kids, don't by any means stop playing with them to come on here, enjoy eacother while you have eachother, of course I need to follow that advice myself. Paul was a devout Jew, and later in his life he some how learn't greek, probably to preach. Does the greek interpretation of the NT support your claims?

Why do you think it was later in life? Most of the well educated in that area of the world spoke Greek as well as their local language. Paul was very well-educated, so would have grown up bilingual. It was not just to preach. The teachings of Paul in the NT (in Greek) rarely speak on issues of the distant past, and when he does, the way it is done does not give any indication how he would have viewed that past. Someone in any ANE culture would have viewed those stories as true, and as valid, EVEN IF they did not think of them as strictly historical. They just didn't view such stories the same way we do.

One of the leading Pauline scholars, and an evangelical Christian and former pastor, Robert Hays, has studied Paul and his world intensively. I have one of his books on Paul's use of the Old Testament. I wrote to him on this very issue and he stated that it is very likely that Paul would not have viewed the Creation stories as strictly literal, and would not have considered it necessary for Adam to have been literally historical, even though he made reference to Adam. At the same time, he would have thought of Adam as "real" and "true" in a way that our modern minds just have a hard time getting around.

 

[grmorton]

In HISTORICAL SCIENCE Vance, that is what we are talking about. You must understand the difference between process and historical science and how they function if any of us are to get anything from this debate. Evolutionists likewise go out and look for evidence that supports it's starting assumption that all life can be explained naturalistically. When a radiometric date is out of "the correct ball park" (i.e. not what the scientist initially thought it should be), it is not published and rarely are the results fully explained.

As a professional practicioner of a historical science, I am always amazed at how little those like you, who do not presumably practice historical science actually know about the foundations. Historical science makes predictions which can then be tested against the data. If the data supports the prediction then there is verification of the concepts. If it doesn't, then someone needs to revise the concept. You all forget that

Your statement about bad radiometric dates not being published is FALSE. Creationists say this over and over and over yet a young-earth creationist, John Woodmorappe, scoured the literature to find dates which were wrong by 20%. He published 700 of them in the Creation Research Society Quarterly in 1979. IF, as you say, bad dates are not published, HOW ON EARTH DID WOODY FIND THOSE BAD DATES IN THE LITERATURE????? You simply don't know what you are talking about. I then took his data and plotted the 'correct age' against the 'wrong age' and published it in the Creation REsearch Society Quarterly. Woody didn't like this because it showed that even when the dates are out by 20% there is still a tendency for the date to be older the lower down in the geologic column the rock is found.

And since Woody didn't publish the radiometric dates which were not wrong, we can't tell whether or not the dates published by Woody represent .00001% of all dates. And if these bad dates (which were published) represent only a tiny fraction of the correct dates, then one would be forced to conclude that radiometric dating works.

If you read nothing else in this post than read this:
The ONLY difference between evolution and creation is the different interpretations of the same evidence using the same science!

This is Bull Roar, nothing more! As a former publishing YEC, I can assure you that my YEC beliefs were NOT based upon the same evidence as mainstream science. And that always bothered me. I spent the early 80's trying to figure out how to make it be just a different interpretation. It wasn't to be, and no one else has actually done that either. You guys don't explain canyons found buried in the geologic column, carved by rivers (pointy ended canyons) and then buried. (see second picture)


You all fail to explain the very interesting activity caught in the geologic column. Like in the middle of the geologic column we find termites digging nests, and mammals digging into those nests trying to get a meal (see the fifth picture).


This interesting photo is from a book which this friend had. It shows a termite nest, and the digging done by an insectivore trying to get into the nest to eat the little white critters. The pattern seen below looks just like what we find today when insectivores dig to get to termites.

This dinner attempt took place in the Oligocene. Where the A is, is where the mammal tried digging into the nest. The T marks the termite nest. And all this was going on during the raging global flood which was supposedly dumping 50-100 feet of sediment each day on top of these hapless animals who didn't know that, and who continued digging even when under 100 feet of sediment!!!!! Believing the global flood stuff is simply illogical


Why do I say 100 feet of sediment per day? Because the geologic column, in the basins often has 36000 feet of sediment. To deposit this in 1 year means approximately 100 feet per day, or 4 feet per hour. How exactly did termites dig a nest, and a mammal come along and try to dig into the nest all of which must have occured in about 30 seconds. YEC is not an interpretation using the same data. If it is, explain the termites and mammal digging shown in the fifth picture.


YOu all don't explain why in the Jurassic (which should be the middle of the flood, cicadas dug nests and then came out of the nest. Remember that cicadas stay underground for several years before emerging. How did this happen in a 1 year global flood. the Cicada nest is at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/termites.htm .


YOu guys don't explain the phenomenon of Lake Suigetsu. Every year in Lake Suigetsu, the algae blooms, then it dies off, leaving a small white layer on the bottom of the lake. The rest of the year dark sediment is laid down. Scientits took cores and counted the white layers. There are over 100,000 white layers. We see this lake today producing one white layer per year. The scientists then dated the white layers and compared the C14 date with the layer count. The third picture shows that comparison. Notice how close the C14 dates are to the varve count. When I get back to Beijing, I can post a picture of those varves.


YOu guys never explain the data seen in the fourth picture.


THis is a pic of a fossil in my personal collection from the Cotham Marble near Bristol England. It is Rhaetic in age, roughly 205 million years old. It is uppermost Triassic.

The two-inch tall rock tells a great story of slow deposition. At the base are laminated sands. Whatever deposited them deposited alternating lithologies. The photo only shows 2 laminations but there are 3 on my sample. You can see the sudden onset of lime deposition and the numerous small bulb-like algae growths. some of them grew taller than the others and that is what is marked algae on the pic. It takes some time (not to mention still waters and no deposition raining down on them in the Flood) for the algae to grow. How much time? Don't know but it isn't instantaneous. Eventually the algal trees gave rise at the top of them to stromatolitic deposition. In between the algal trees, one can see banding. The nature of them suggests that they are of equal time frames, like a year worth of deposit. Limestone stromatolites don't grow that fast--1 mm per year. see http://www.agric.uwa.edu.au/soils/h...strom_sites.htm

That rate would mean about 25 years worth of growth for this fossil. I count about 18 banding events which is in the ballpark of the above growth rate. After the stromatolites grew, one sees a return to sandier deposition which kills off the stromatolites.

Then sometime after the rock was deposited, it was heated and turned to marble and is now used for decorative building stones.

So, since you say that YEC is just an alternative explanation for the same data, show me your logical, self-consistent alternative interpretation for the data I just showed you.

Whilst they are an apologetics organisation, they are all fully trained scientists - most with Ph.Ds in their respective fields. Evolution destroys the very foundations that the Gospel relies on to stand (I find this disturbing that you don't appear to care) so AiG refute evolution by using the evidence and by showing how the evidence makes no sense when interpreted through the evolutionary interpretation or world-view.

Bull Roars. AIG never talks about the data I just showed you. They have no explanation and they hide such things from their gullible followers.

Once again, you appear not to have a full and clear understanding of what science is, what it can and can't prove and it's limits.

I think the lack of understanding lies with you.

 

[seebs]

They admit that openly and clearly that all of their science is BASED on the Bible being the infallible Word of God(...)

So they're bibliolators, and teach false doctrine. We sorta guessed.

 

[Delta One]

Firstly, have a happy birthday ChrisS whenever it is! God be with you and bless you.

Now, hello grmorton,

As a professional practicioner of a historical science, I am always amazed at how little those like you, who do not presumably practice historical science actually know about the foundations.

Just read a lot of materials and can think logically I guess...

Historical science makes predictions which can then be tested against the data. If the data supports the prediction then there is verification of the concepts. If it doesn't, then someone needs to revise the concept.

Of course historical science makes predictions that can be tested against the data. No one, not even I, said that it didn't.

BUT, what I did say is that experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork; for example, you think that you may know the atmospheric conditions and makeup when life first arose in lifeless chemicals. Of course, this idea has been tested by Miller and his pal (whose name I've forgotten, lets name him "X"). Miller and X thought (i.e. they assumed) they knew what elements were present and in what concentration the atmosphere was when the first life came from lifeless chemicals. They simulated a lightning strike (once again an assumption as to how long it hit for and at what voltage. We all know that it didn't produce the results that they hoped for.

Also, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The geological principle is a GREAT example of this. Geologists observe the way in which all the geological processes take so much time to make a noticable difference or change to the landscape. They assume that these same processes have happened at the same rate since the earth stated or billions of years back into the past. BUT, hold on. We have direct observation from the present which refutes this idea of thinking: volcanic erruptions. When Mount St. Helens blew several years ago it's mud flow and so forth created a mini canyon measuring several metres deep (20ish metres I think) and wide and stretching for some distance. Natural processes would usually have taken a long time to produce what Mount St. Helen's did in a day! It is nothing more than an unprovable assumption that natural processes have been going at the same process as they are today for millions of years.

The Bible prophecies about such claims when people will say that everything has been going the same since creation (i.e. of the earth in this debate).

You all forget that

Yes, I forget that ... [you must have got side tracked as you never finished the statement]

Your statement about bad radiometric dates not being published is FALSE.

Do you think that I said that? No, I didn't. That statement I quoted from was not the work of a creationist, but an evolutionary geologist, Dr Richard L. Mauger, in K-Ar ages of biotites from tuffs in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado from Contributions to Geology, Universitiy of Wyoming, vol. 15(1), 1977, p. 37.

I also didn't specify as to whether or not all dates out of the correct ball park were published. You assumed that I said that. I did not.

This is Bull Roar, nothing more! As a former publishing YEC, I can assure you that my YEC beliefs were NOT based upon the same evidence as mainstream science. And that always bothered me. You guys don't explain canyons found buried in the geologic column, carved by rivers (pointy ended canyons) and then buried. (see second picture)


Well, then, perhaps you were the one not doing real science? Logic and rational thinking tells us that we both have the same evidence, i.e. the same rock or land structure. You don't need to be a scientist to understand it. If you have indeed published as a YEC, then your work should be avaible. So would you mind telling us your name so we can look for your work? Since I am not a geologist, I cannot comment as to what creationists believe regarding such examples, but we do, for example, believe that much of the geology of the earth was formed rapidly during the Great Genesis Flood, even the Grand Canyon. It's interesting, the evolutionists put up quite a bit of a scrap when a creationary book telling people of the creationary interpretation (of the same evidence - the Grand Canyon, including all the geological features on the structure) of the Grand Canyon's origin.

I spent the early 80's trying to figure out how to make it be just a different interpretation. It wasn't to be, and no one else has actually done that either.

Well I must be a genius then, cuz I figured it out in a matter of minutes since reading the Updated and Expanded Answers Book and a few other sources. We both use the same evidence (i.e. experimental data - although this more accurately applies to process science given the very few assumptions that can be made in process science - and the same rocks, landforms, etc, etc) and we both use the same science (i.e. geology, chemistry and physics in this case, genetics, information science, biology and the list goes on). How, then, do we come to different conclusions? There is only one thing that is different -- the interpretation of the evidence. This interpretation is based on a scientist's underlying beliefs, which is different for evolutionists and creationists. This isn't a hard point to understand and grasp. If I am wrong, please point out exactly where I am incorrect, IYO (In Your Opinion).

You have provided no evidence of why I am wrong, or why my information is "bull roar". An interesting choice of words if I do say so myself.


You all fail to explain the very interesting activity caught in the geologic column. Like in the middle of the geologic column we find termites digging nests, and mammals digging into those nests trying to get a meal (see the fifth picture).

I may not have an explanation, but I am sure that some creationist does. Firstly, however, if the termites are fossilized digging nests and mammals trying to dig into those nests, then that implies that it would have to be quick burial beneath sediment that hardened quickly (hence fossilized quickly) does it not? The Great Flood is, IMHO, the only credible explaination for this, as many other examples exist all over the world, for example, there is a fossil of a sea creature giving birth of finishing off it's meal. All of these things imply a rapid burial under sediment and so forth and a rapid fossilization.


This interesting photo is from a book which this friend had. It shows a termite nest, and the digging done by an insectivore trying to get into the nest to eat the little white critters. The pattern seen below looks just like what we find today when insectivores dig to get to termites.

This dinner attempt took place in the Oligocene. Where the A is, is where the mammal tried digging into the nest. The T marks the termite nest. And all this was going on during the raging global flood which was supposedly dumping 50-100 feet of sediment each day on top of these hapless animals who didn't know that, and who continued digging even when under 100 feet of sediment!!!!! Believing the global flood stuff is simply illogical.

I'm not so convinced that the majority of the water came from the sky. I believe that the Aborginal legend says that the water came crashing down from the north. The Bible also hints at some massive plate tectonic movements. We all saw the effect of underwater "earthquakes" can do. I imagine that God, who is infinitely more powerful than what I can think of, would have physically intervened in the motion of plate tetonics (or perhaps, He spread them apart, IMHO - not anyone else's) and the tidal waves caused by such motion could easily account for the global destruction and also be in-line with what the Aborginal legend said about the a time when the whole world was under water. It makes more sense than believing that the animals would stay there even after their dead and not have anyother animal eat them, have no oxygen or any other element assist in decay, and somehow be covered with sediment and then for that sediment to dry quickly. Please, the creationary account makes much more sense and is logically more sound.

So, since you say that YEC is just an alternative explanation for the same data, show me your logical, self-consistent alternative interpretation for the data I just showed you.

Since I'm not a geologist, why don't you forward your questions to the editor at AiG and see what they say in response to your questions.

Bull Roars. AIG never talks about the data I just showed you. They have no explanation and they hide such things from their gullible followers.

Based on prejudice and probably not on experience. Why not ask them what they believe regarding the issues. True Origin may also be able to answer them, as may Christian Answers Network -- if you ask.

I think the lack of understanding lies with you.

Believe what you wish, but you have not pointed out where I am wrong, and hence, you believe it out of blind faith...

 

[Delta One]

seebs,

So they're bibliolators, and teach false doctrine. We sorta guessed.

Once again, an unsupported assertion. You have not shown evidence to back up your claims. Either that or it was a bad joke.

 

[SBG]

Delta One says this:

They admit that openly and clearly that all of their science is BASED on the Bible being the infallible Word of God(...)

And your response, seebs is this??

So they're bibliolators, and teach false doctrine. We sorta guessed.

They teach false doctrine, what would that be? Would that be that the Bible is the Infallible Word of God? That is what you responded to directly.

Are you suggesting that what God says is fallible?

 

[gluadys]

Of course historical science makes predictions that can be tested against the data. No one, not even I, said that it didn't.

BUT, what I did say is that experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork; for example, you think that you may know the atmospheric conditions and makeup when life first arose in lifeless chemicals. Of course, this idea has been tested by Miller and his pal (whose name I've forgotten, lets name him "X"). Miller and X thought (i.e. they assumed) they knew what elements were present and in what concentration the atmosphere was when the first life came from lifeless chemicals. They simulated a lightning strike (once again an assumption as to how long it hit for and at what voltage. We all know that it didn't produce the results that they hoped for.

This shows so much misunderstanding. What on earth makes you assume that Miller and Urey thought they knew what the atmosphere was on the early earth? They didn't know and didn't pretend to know. They created a model of what it might be, based on data. When that model was shown to be incorrect, they and others repeated the experiment using different model atmospheres. Same goes for the "lightening strike". This experiment has been repeated with various inputs of energy, including ordinary sunlight. Would you like to claim that ordinary sunlight was not present on the early earth? Finally you repeat the erroneous notion that they were trying to create life. That was never the point of the experiment. They were trying to see if organic material could be produced in the conditions likely to prevail on the early earth and they did. That is a long way from creating or attempting to create life.

Also, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The geological principle is a GREAT example of this. Geologists observe the way in which all the geological processes take so much time to make a noticable difference or change to the landscape. They assume that these same processes have happened at the same rate since the earth stated or billions of years back into the past. BUT, hold on. We have direct observation from the present which refutes this idea of thinking: volcanic erruptions. When Mount St. Helens blew several years ago it's mud flow and so forth created a mini canyon measuring several metres deep (20ish metres I think) and wide and stretching for some distance. Natural processes would usually have taken a long time to produce what Mount St. Helen's did in a day! It is nothing more than an unprovable assumption that natural processes have been going at the same process as they are today for millions of years.

This is an excellent example of how right Glenn is about creationist "interpretations" not using the same evidence, as well as misunderstanding the principle of uniformitarity. Uniformitarity does not mean that everything happens gradually. It means that like processes produce like results. Volcanoes act today as they acted in the past. They created mud flows in the past as they create them today. And riverine erosion happens today as it did in the past and created canyons in the past as they are creating them today.

In many cases, to assert that a physical process has not occurred in the past as it does today would require undoing the very laws of nature that hold creation together. Note, I am not underrating God's omnipotence here. Of course God can suspend the laws of nature. But if God chooses to suspend the laws of nature, there will be consequences. And in some cases, the consequences would be the destruction of creation. I see no evidence that God has ever chosen to undo creation.

Logic and rational thinking tells us that we both have the same evidence, i.e. the same rock or land structure. You don't need to be a scientist to understand it. If you have indeed published as a YEC, then your work should be avaible. So would you mind telling us your name so we can look for your work?

Having the same evidence available does not mean using it all. Creationist sources do not use a great deal of the evidence available. They give only a partial picture because they only present what supports or appears to support their claims. When the evidence they use is put into the context of all evidence available, the picture changes. And Glenn Morton's name is Glenn Morton.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Since I am not a geologist, I cannot comment as to what creationists believe regarding such examples, but we do, for example, believe that much of the geology of the earth was formed rapidly during the Great Genesis Flood, even the Grand Canyon.

There is plenty of evidence that the Canyon could not have formed that rapidly, and that it existed well before any alleged flood date. Furthermore, it is not just the formation of the canyon itself that needs to be accounted for, but also the formation of the sediments which the canyon cuts through. If you want to support a global flood you must first identify which of the sediments which form the wall of the canyon were laid down during the flood. No creationist source has ever done that. A few are silly enough to claim that all of them were, but that is easily shown to be impossible.

I am not a geologist either, but for more information on the evidence which creationists ignore, go to the second post here and check the links.

You all fail to explain the very interesting activity caught in the geologic column. Like in the middle of the geologic column we find termites digging nests, and mammals digging into those nests trying to get a meal (see the fifth picture).

I may not have an explanation, but I am sure that some creationist does. Firstly, however, if the termites are fossilized digging nests and mammals trying to dig into those nests, then that implies that it would have to be quick burial beneath sediment that hardened quickly (hence fossilized quickly) does it not?

He did not say that the termites and their mammal predator were fossilized. He said the termite nest with evidence of a mammal digging into it was preserved. So, no, quick burial was not required.

The Great Flood is, IMHO, the only credible explaination for this, as many other examples exist all over the world, for example, there is a fossil of a sea creature giving birth of finishing off it's meal. All of these things imply a rapid burial under sediment and so forth and a rapid fossilization.

Rapid burial is not the same thing as rapid fossilization. Rapid burial is required in these instances in order to preserve the remains for fossilization. But note that in most cases only hard parts are fossilized. That is evidence of slow fossilization. If the fossilization had been rapid, some of the soft body parts might have been fossilized as well. But they decayed before fossilization could occur. (Do you begin to see what I mean about examining all the evidence available?) Oh, and you can have rapid burial without a global flood. There is not a whit of evidence that all rapid burials took place in the same time frame or by the same method.

 

[grmorton]

Now, hello grmorton,

Nothing you said is to the point so I am not going to respond to it. You said that YEC was just an alternative interpretation of the data. Specifically you said

The ONLY difference between evolution and creation is the different interpretations of the same evidence using the same science!

I then gave you several examples and you have NOT explained how YEC interprets this data differently. You are all talk and no walk, all grandiose assertion but no exertion. Explain the data. YOu made the claim that YEC is another interpretation of the same data. Don't tell me to go to AIG. It is your statement I am challenging, not theirs. Or do you make meaningless statements which you will not defend regularly?

The only thing you said worth responding to was this:

If I am wrong, please point out exactly where I am incorrect, IYO (In Your Opinion).

You have provided no evidence of why I am wrong, or why my information is "bull roar". An interesting choice of words if I do say so myself.

and

I may not have an explanation, but I am sure that some creationist does.

and

Since I'm not a geologist,

You are so sure that some creationist has an explanation, but since you are not a geologist, you wouldn't really know whether or not the explanation they offer is really satisfactory. Doesn't this sound like having faith in your fellow creationists? Aren't we supposed to have faith in Jesus, not fellow creationists?

And I have provided evidence that you are wrong. You claimed that YEC was just another interpretation of the same data. You can't provide an explanation for the data I presented, therefore your claim is most certainly wrong. If it isn't, then please present the explanation you say exists. If you can't, you are all huff and all bluff.

Firstly, however, if the termites are fossilized digging nests and mammals trying to dig into those nests, then that implies that it would have to be quick burial beneath sediment that hardened quickly (hence fossilized quickly) does it not? The Great Flood is, IMHO, the only credible explaination for this, as many other examples exist all over the world, for example, there is a fossil of a sea creature giving birth of finishing off it's meal. All of these things imply a rapid burial under sediment and so forth and a rapid fossilization.

What I find amazing is that you focus only on what you think is required to rapidly preserve the digging, but ignore the fact that the digging itself took time. If you look at that picture (attached again below), you will see that the termites dug through laminated sediments. These sediments had to have been deposited BEFORE the termites did their digging. After some time, termites started digging their nest. Their digging destroyed the laminations and the laminations truncate into the termite nest. Their digging took some TIME. It couldn't be instantaneous. Then the mammal (an aardvark-like animal most likely) also dug through the laminated strata. The laminations truncate against the mammal digging. The mammal would not have dug for termites BEFORE they had dug their nest so we know that the mammal digging occurred AFTER the time it took for the termites to build their nest. One can tell that it wasn't just a small amount of time because the termites had to dig, burrow and dig again to totally destroy the laminations of the sediments their nest was in. If they dug quickly but incompletely, you would still see evidence of laminations within the sediments marked with a T. Once again, this is an indication that more time is required than would be allowed in a global flood which must deposted 2-4 feet per hour on top of all this.

Then you (incredulously and blythly) state that all this must be buried quickly to be preserved. I am going to ask WHY? What makes you think a hole in the ground dug by a mammal is going to need to be buried quickly to be preserved. It could be filled in over a hundred years and the hole would still be preserved. Same with an already buried termite nest. What makes you think that something is going to wipe out the termite nest when it is already buried in the ground?

There is absolutely NO need for rapid burial of holes in the ground for their preservation especially something already buried a couple of feet into the ground.

So, Delta, put up or shut up. BAck up your claim that YEC can explain this or be honest enough to admit that you are wrong on this issue. You made the claim, AIG didn't. It is your reputation at stake, not AiG's. Are you honorable enough to acknowledge that your statement is not supported by evidence (e.g. an explanation of this data)?

 

[seebs]

seebs,

So they're bibliolators, and teach false doctrine. We sorta guessed.

Once again, an unsupported assertion. You have not shown evidence to back up your claims. Either that or it was a bad joke.

I quoted the unequivocal proof of my assertion in the post in question. Read John 1:1-14. Then look at what they said about the Bible. That's bibliolatry and false doctrine, pure and simple.

 

[seebs]

Delta One says this:



And your response, seebs is this??



They teach false doctrine, what would that be? Would that be that the Bible is the Infallible Word of God? That is what you responded to directly.

Are you suggesting that what God says is fallible?

I am saying that calling the Bible the Word is bibliolatry and false doctrine. In traditional Christianity, we worship Jesus, not a book. The Word is part of the trinity. If the Bible is not an eternal aspect of God, it is not the Word.