Balancing out.

[vipertaja]

I have noticed a strange imbalance here. Evolution is constantly critisized
and attacked, which is ok for a debate forum, yet the creationists never
seem to defend their own alternative, they merely attack evolution.

This is the deal of this thread then...and pay attention:
*In this thread EVOLUTION shall not be the topic at all. No attacking it here.

*This thread shall be purely focused on CREATIONISM. Here creationism shall
be in turn challenged and "attacked" and creationists will have to try to
defend it. No moving the focus here...it will be squarely between the eyes of
creationism or "Intelligent design" if you want to call it that. Here they will
have to prove why they consider it to be scientific...and it HAS to be done
through SCIENTIFIC METHODS. No "godddidit", no arguments based on
popularity, emotional appeal or other such nonsense.

If this fails to be done properly I will assume the conclusion can only really
be that creationism should not be considered science and should keep itself
to the realms of religion and philosophy where it fits in.

 

[Micaiah]

Scientific arguments proposed by creationists. Hehe. I know you think there is not much to say but personally I find this kind of thread too general and it just degenerates into a free-for-all. You'd be better to focus on one particular topic IMHO.

 

[vipertaja]

Scientific arguments proposed by creationists. Hehe. I know you think there is not much to say but personally I find this kind of thread too general and it just degenerates into a free-for-all. You'd be better to focus on one particular topic IMHO.

I agree that this thread will degenerate fast. It will be derailed by either one
side or the other within a page or two at most I think, but I thought I'd see
how long it keeps on track.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Here they will have to prove why they consider it to be scientific...and it HAS to be done through SCIENTIFIC METHODS. No "godddidit", no arguments based on popularity, emotional appeal or other such nonsense.

[creationist persona]The evidence is all around us! All of creation is evidence of my god’s existence… and… look! A PUPPY![/creationist persona]

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I have noticed a strange imbalance here. Evolution is constantly critisized
and attacked, which is ok for a debate forum, yet the creationists never
seem to defend their own alternative, they merely attack evolution.

Interestingly, the forum's scribes have uncovered an ancient text with a prophecy about The One. The One will destroy the creationists and bring balance to The Forum.

 

[Mystman]

No "godddidit"

considering that the entire idea of creationism is that Goddidit, it would be a bit hard to not use that concept

 

[vipertaja]

considering that the entire idea of creationism is that Goddidit, it would be a bit hard to not use that concept

Yeah...I know. That's pretty much the whole problem I think.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

considering that the entire idea of creationism is that Goddidit, it would be a bit hard to not use that concept

Not necessarily. Scientific creationists in the 17th and 18th centuries made a sincere effort to explain Biblical events without invoking miracles. Later discoveries would prove these explanations wrong, but the general approach these creationists took was laudable. Sadly, modern creationists have abandoned this approach since it leads to conclusions they cannot tolerate.

 

[tocis]

Okay now, here's a classical question for the creationists:

I've yet to meet any creationist who doesn't try to explain the sediments found pretty much everywhere with The Flood(TM). Now, scientifically (remember, no "goddidit" here!), where did all that water come from, and where did it disappear to?

(Note that, if you want to claim that the earth was simply "flat" (i. e. without mountains) before The Flood(TM), I'll demand that you explain how the energy needed to transform a "flat" earth into the mountainous planet we know today within some months at most didn't release enough energy to... well... let's just say "vaporize all oceans" and leave it at that)

 

[Prometheus_ash]

slight side step
It's my opinion that creationists attact evolution so vehemently is that they believe if they could somehow disprove evolution, the next logical step is to take up evolution. Obviously that is not the case, but it is what they believe (for the many, and part of the reason on why so much time is spent on evolution.
side step back to discusion

 

[vipertaja]

slight side step
It's my opinion that creationists attact evolution so vehemently is that they believe if they could somehow disprove evolution, the next logical step is to take up evolution. Obviously that is not the case, but it is what they believe (for the many, and part of the reason on why so much time is spent on evolution.
side step back to discusion

I think you meant to insert the word "creation" there somewhere.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Okay now, here's a classical question for the creationists:

I've yet to meet any creationist who doesn't try to explain the sediments found pretty much everywhere with The Flood(TM). Now, scientifically (remember, no "goddidit" here!), where did all that water come from, and where did it disappear to?

(Note that, if you want to claim that the earth was simply "flat" (i. e. without mountains) before The Flood(TM), I'll demand that you explain how the energy needed to transform a "flat" earth into the mountainous planet we know today within some months at most didn't release enough energy to... well... let's just say "vaporize all oceans" and leave it at that)

The water came from the vapor canopy, from subterranean deposits, and water from the antediluvian ocean. It covered the earth (Which at that point had not volcanic mountains, or those caused by plate tectonics.) with about 15 cubits of water. That amount of water could easily fit in today’s oceans.



The second question was where the mountains came from. They came from volcanic activity, shifting of the plates during the flood, etc. Why do you think this would "vaporize all oceans"?

 

[loriersea]

The water came from the vapor canopy, from subterranean deposits, and water from the antediluvian ocean. It covered the earth (Which at that point had not volcanic mountains, or those caused by plate tectonics.) with about 15 cubits of water. That amount of water could easily fit in today’s oceans.

From my understanding (and I'm sure others know more about this), a vapor canopy of that size would have substantially changed the atmosphere, to the point where the air would not have been breathable. Plus, it would have blocked out the light from the sun. So how did things survive?

 

[Loudmouth]

What we need in this thread is focus. I say we focus on one thing that is specific to young earth creationism and can be scientifically tested.

Special creation theory states that all species, or "created kinds" were created within six, 24 hour days of each other. To support this theory, creationists must present evidence which demonstrates that all forms of life were present from the very beginning, living at the same time, and what those created kinds were. This question can be answered with scientific evidence without "GodDidIt" if it were true. Also, any mechanisms offered need to be supported by observations.

As an alternative, a creationist could show that all species went through a recent genetic bottleneck 4,400 years ago (ie Noah's Flood) using the same criteria above.

 

[Loudmouth]

The water came from the vapor canopy, from subterranean deposits, and water from the antediluvian ocean. It covered the earth (Which at that point had not volcanic mountains, or those caused by plate tectonics.) with about 15 cubits of water. That amount of water could easily fit in today’s oceans.

Do you have evidence to back this up?

The second question was where the mountains came from. They came from volcanic activity, shifting of the plates during the flood, etc. Why do you think this would "vaporize all oceans"?

The top part of Mt. Everest is sea sediments, not volcanic rock. These sediments are so thick that 1 year of being underwater can no explain it. The other problem is that if the top part of Mt. Everest is due to being covered by the Flood, then why isn't the whole mountain encased in this same sediment. Also, volcanoes don't produce mountains like Mt. Everest.

This means that if your scenario is true, 5 miles of rock had to be thrown up in the air. This amount of energy and friction would have left obvious signs of metamorphosis and would have melted quite a bit of Mt. Everest. No such evidence exists that this is what happened. If this happened world wide, then it would produce so much heat that the oceans would evaporate.

Your scenario is simply not evidenced.

 

[Phred]

The water came from the vapor canopy, from subterranean deposits, and water from the antediluvian ocean. It covered the earth (Which at that point had not volcanic mountains, or those caused by plate tectonics.) with about 15 cubits of water. That amount of water could easily fit in today’s oceans.

This is nonsense. There is no evidence of any sort of vapor canopy, nor subterranean deposits. There is evidence that the mountains of the Earth have been around much longer than 6,000 years and no evidence that they were ever covered in water. To make statements like this one, without supporting evidence, is ignorant at best and deliberately misleading at worst.

What RWG is saying here is that she believes, regardless of any evidence or lack of it, that there was a global flood. Since there was such a flood, there must have been a vapor canopy as there's no other way to validate such a concept. Without the prior (mistaken) belief in a flood there is nothing to support or suggest a vapor canopy. RWG is simply laying fallacy upon fallacy.

The second question was where the mountains came from. They came from volcanic activity, shifting of the plates during the flood, etc. Why do you think this would "vaporize all oceans"?

Utter nonsense. Once again we have fallacy upon fallacy. RWG requires mountains to suddenly appear since there's no other way that the Earth could be covered with water unless the mountains just weren't very tall. Luckily, this thread is about creationism and the evidence FOR it, not the vast amount of data that is against it. So please RWG, lay it on me. Where's the EVIDENCE that supports your statements of fact? If you can't back up your comments, they are not factual.

The ball's in your court. No nonsense like "why do you think it would vaporize the oceans?" Please show us the evidence that the oceans were, in fact, vaporized. Show us the evidence that mountains underwent sudden uplift. Show us the evidence, not the conclusions of someone desperately trying to validate a belief.

 

[TheNewAge]

The second question was where the mountains came from. They came from volcanic activity, shifting of the plates during the flood, etc. Why do you think this would "vaporize all oceans"?

I guess it is excusable that RWG doesn't have clue since she is only 16, guys and gals. Cut her a break.
For all the mountains on the earth to have formed from volcanic activity in just the last few thousand years would have to have been caused by EXTREME volcanic activity that would do a far more complete job of eradicating all the life on earth than any petty flood.
Without going into boring numbers and figures, summarized, what it comes down to is this:
The volcanic activity required to create all the landforms we see today, in just 4000 years, that you mention, would mean that millions of tons of acidic elements, primarily sulfuric acid, would have been injected into the earth's atmosphere during that geological "instant" of time.
The result: for starters, Noah and his little boat would have been melted into sludge within a couple of days, as would every other living matter on the earth.

 

[MartinM]

I guess it is excusable that RWG doesn't have clue since she is only 16, guys and gals. Cut her a break.

I suspect most people would be more inclined to give her a break if we hadn't gone over all of this with her before. She never seems to learn much.

 

[TheNewAge]

I suspect most people would be more inclined to give her a break if we hadn't gone over all of this with her before. She never seems to learn much.

I was being sarcastic and condescending. I was trying to be careful so I don't invite the wrath of the moderators upon me again.

 

[loriersea]

RWG, are you homeschooled?