Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christians would argue that God's record of events can be trusted, and so is legitimate evidence on this board.
That is not responding to the evidence. That is just a blanket denial of the evidence provided.
You are making a blanket judgment without responding to the evidence provided. If that is how you win your arguments, then you are the proverbial ostrich who buries head in sand.
Did the founding of this republic and it's 1787 constitution correspond to a "turning away from the faith"? If not this "prophesy" is not, or at least doesn't apply to the secularity of the US.
And there are also many who note that, while is the foundation of their faith, it is worthless a scientific text in face of God's actual creation.
No, the facts which God has stated as to creation, are understood by Christians to be fact. And the scientific data confirms God's account to be true. However, you ignore the scientific facts supporting the creation account outright. And this shows that your agenda is to refuse the creation theory no matter what evidence is provided.
What part of "You're bringing nothing to the discussion" do you not get? You aren't bringing anything new to the table, and you are certainly not arguing for creation, only the Flood.
Where is your evidence for Creation?
Respond to the evidence provided that you asked for. If you don't, that means you are the proverbial ostrich who sticks her head in the sand.
Claims about evidence for the Noahic flood isn't evidence for creation. Why is that hard for you to understand?
You have not responded to the evidence provided, and you refuse to do so. So, you have already lost, and Creation stands. Any whining on your part that this is not true is meaningless, because you could not respond to the evidence provided.
Good Day.
For those who drafted it, apparently it was, since they could have recognized God as the Declaration of Independence did. Those who drafted the 1787 constitutions made an obvious choice to take God out.
So what is the evidence that supports the creation theory, and what are its testable predictions?I agree. Creation is a theory that is the best explanation of the facts, even though many are duped into believing in evolution. What is most popular does not mean it is most correct.
You obviously have very little knowledge of the evidence and how it is used.You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.
Read
Call for Submissions
These are not stories, these are scientific facts.
It isn't designed that way. It happens via a LOT of trial and error, resulting in a lot of dead things.Creationists do not deny changes in DNA over time to produce long-term adaption to chronic conditions. That is why the Genetic Code is so complex and amazing. How was this Genetic Code designed to adapt in such amazing ways?
In just one layer, as would be seen in a flood? Yes, I know how particulates settle out, but the entire layer should all yield contemporaneous time estimates.Sedimentary rock is worldwide.
The flood was 6000 years ago? Most sources say around 4500 years ago.Over 6000 years ago.
Great! And these would have all been laid down at the same time, yes? Of course, all of the non-bivalves and such should have 'sorted out' by their hydrodynamic drag coefficients and density and all that, right?The sediment typically and naturally settles in many stratum [sic] of various mineral and organic origin. Some types of mineral and organic matter settle faster, and others more slowly. The sedimentary rock and sandstone is composed of the finest particle sizes, and nanoparticles.
Citation please.Fossils are rarely formed today, because such quick burial of organisms under silt like stratum is hardly ever accomplished in our recorded history.
What is the evidence for the flood? You cannot use what you are trying to support as evidence.The layer of rock before the flood is practically fossil free because no quick burial took place.
Can you demonstrate otherwise? I mean, with something other than mere citationless/evidence-less stories on a forum?This amazing insight is ignored by evolutionists. They interpret the layers of rock as meaning thousands or hundreds of thousands of years per layer, and so assume the fossils within each layer are also hundreds of thousands, up to hundreds of millions of years old, depending on the stratum they are found in.
Yes, I demolished this gibberish in an earlier reply.However, not only must creatures be buried quickly under various layers of stratum to form fossils, but the less mobile and less complex a life form is, that life form will be buried first, while the more mobile a life form is, the more likely it will avoid burial earlier on. And the more complex creatures float when dead, and so many do avoid being buried under earlier stages of sediment.
Just so stories are not scientific facts.The more simple life forms sink to the bottom, and are less mobile, so these creatures are naturally buried first - under the lowest layers of stratum.
Creationists assume that evolutionists only use fossil data in their analyses.Evolutionists assume that, because the less mobile and simple life forms are found even in the lowest stratum, that they must have evolved first. Actually, the less mobile and simple creatures are buried first under the early stratum layers because they could not escape or had no inclination to escape, and they do not float in water, and they are usually far less mobile. And so, that is why such simple creatures are even found on the lowest stratums.
It depends, really. If, however, a fossil is located in an undisturbed stratum beneath a datable layer of volcanic ash, then should one not conclude that the fossil is older than the ash?But the evolutionists date the fossils according to stratum, and so, they date the less mobile and simple creatures as being 100’s of millions of years old.
Begging the question fallacy.However, that is not how the stratums [sic] were laid, as they were laid rather quickly – likely within a few years, as the flood waters receded off the face of the earth.
Non sequitur.This is proven by the fossils found within. lifeforms must be buried in sediment quickly to form fossils.
But not all in the mud, like bivalves. How are there non-contemporaneous strata each containing such fossils?In addition, aquatic life is found in all layers because they live in abundance in water.
Wait - so now you are saying that some sessile molluscs survived the flood of Noah? I thought they were all buried in situ?Some of these many aquatic creatures die off and so are buried in the lowest stratums,[sic] while others live on and escape, only to be buried in the higher layers of stratum.
Not even post-world-wide flood? Hmmm... Maybe it wasn't world-wide after all...A continuous stratum is your invention. That is a myth of your making. There is no such thing as a continuous stratum.
Yes - How DID floating, sometimes motile algae get "buried" at all? Oh - I know! When they die, they sink, and get "buried" by the usual processes by which anything really small gets 'buried.'softer sediment layers quickly eroded into the huge rock formations we see todayHow quickly? What is the evidence for this?
How did they get buried under sediment so quicklySuper clever! But I think you are misrepresenting me...You agreed that the sedimentary rock is found over the face of the earth. What do you think sedimentary rock was formed from? How about sediment.
Just so stories are cool.And since fossils are found throughout - aquatic life forms mixed with land creatures - that means the sediment was deposited rather quickly under anaerobic conditions, otherwise no fossils would be formed.
Can you provide an example of a fossil bed in which both bivalves and terrestrial critters were found?
How does algae get buried quickly?We see these thousands of miles of coal beds and oil reserves throughout the world, on land, and in seas, and oceans. Oil is formed from algae, which has to be quickly covered by silt/sediment under anaerobic conditions under enormous pressure and heat to form oil. That is why they are called fossil fuels.
Wha? Cool how you answer with a non sequitur and use that to try to insult me!This is common scientific knowledge. I thought you were so well versed on the subject. How is it you are not aware of how fossils fuels developed?You keep making these grand assertions, yet when I provided you with a way to support your genetics claims, you chickened out, so why should anyone assume that you have actual supporting EVIDENCE for a word-wide flood caused by your deity?
Amazing creationist antics.
Um, wow... I never said anything about "all mixed together:, and I also said nothing about the entire face of the earth being covered with sedimentary rock (certainly not as you mean it).None of this is evidence for a world-wide flood 4500 years ago. In fact, none of this is actually "evidence."
You are telling stories and expecting everyone else to be as awed as you obviously were when someone told YOU these stories.
Also, this totally ignores the lack of bottleneck evidence in all living things.
Even though you agree that sedimentary rock covers the face of the earth, with fossils found all through these layers, from Aquatic to many forms of animal and plant life all mixed together, yet you refuse to acknowledge a worldwide flood.
How is it possible that you think stories are scientific facts, and that misrepresenting me helps your cause?How is that possible? Are you so closed minded that you cannot even see reality?
Not all at once, that much is obvious.How else did all those life forms - from water and land all mixed together - get covered in many layers or sediment so quickly to form fossils?
1. It was more than just algae.Where did all the trillions of tons of algae come from that is found all across the world in the form of mammoth oil reserves spanning tens of thousands of square miles with an average depth of 6000 feet when many layers of sediment that quickly buried them?
2. The largest known oil field is "280 km long and 40 km wide...and is estimated at approximately 100 meters in thickness".
I guess this is one of those arguments-from-awe-and-big-numbers? What of it?
Other algae.Where did that huge amount of algae come from that?
Dry land NOW, yes. I thought you were so well-versed on these things?- many reserves in areas way inland on dry land?
Plate tectonics? Maybe you've heard of it?Why do we find fossils of sea creatures even in layers of stratum on the highest mountains far inland?
And creationists take facts and interpret them according to their religious beliefs, even if their interpretations are laughable and counterfactual.So you see, evolutionists take facts and interpret them to according to their evolution theory.
Sure they do. Well, that or they misinterpret them, or they just think that a shallow, naïve story trumps actual evidence/data.Creationists have a theory that most accurately accounts for all known facts.
Creationists do not deny facts.
You do not seem to understand what "the genetic code is."If the genetic code was not designed, then there is no evidence to explain how the genetic code, and complex as it is, could have come into being.
I notice that once again, you're unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims.
You said, "we have many examples of evolutionists, and also creationists, who have not only hidden data, but also falsified data to bolster their theory, which they believe to be true, but can't find the evidence."
I asked, "Many examples? how many can you name?"
So, how many examples? do you have citations? references? links?
"Feline" is a Family within the Superorder Feliformia.A canine is a kind.
A feline is a kind.
And so forth.
Actually, I have this to substantiate my theory:If you can show me evidence of one kind of creature turning into another kind of creature, then you have something in which to substantiate your theory.
If you can show me evidence of any Kind of creature being created ex nihilo by your preferred deity, have at it.If you can show me evidence of one kind of creature turning into another kind of creature, then you have something in which to substantiate your theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?