Creation without a Creator?

[Mechanical Bliss]

Yesterday at 02:30 AM Absolute_Truth said this in Post #81


I'd like to see you breath without the oxygen He provided or for that matter, your body in a whole.

Considering oxygen forms in stars, I see no need to invoke the supernatural for providing my oxygen.

It is unfathomable to me,

Personal incredulity means nothing, especially if you haven't rigorously studied evolutionary biology.

I believe it takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in evolution which goes against everything we see here on earth, rather than creation.

Except evolution doesn't go against everything we see here on Earth. It was postulated because it explains everything we see here on Earth. It doesn't take faith to accept the theory of evolution because it has evidence and faith is belief without evidence.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Yesterday at 04:08 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #89



Why should he? You have to admit that you would never accept anything he posted now would you?

Of course I would. It would just need to withstand the scrutiny any other concept would. That's fair enough, I think.

Of course he would have to meet your conditions, right?

Why not? The rest of science has to.

Information that would have to be an Arikay approved site for scientific evolution. A site that would never post any evidence for a flood. Because if it did it would not be able to call itself an evolution web site.

LOL. It has nothing to do with being an "evolution web site" that would prohibit scientific acceptance of a global flood. The fact that there is evidence that falsifies it is why it's not accepted. It has nothing to do with bias--it has to do with facts that your model cannot explain.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Yesterday at 04:50 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #91


1. I showed where all the water could have come from for the flood. The water held in the mineral that would be enough to fill 10 plus oceans. And I showed a non-bias science(never a creation website) website(Arikay's condition to accept) were they spoke of this mineral that could hold this water and how much there was. But the problem that arose from this did not find room for the smallest probability that here's all the water needed. And to try to find a possible solution for the problem you and others mentioned. Just a flat NO it will not work! That this would boil the earth. Besides, there is cool water just above this mineral that this water(steam) would pass through cooling and condensing it before it reached the surface.

The water is locked within minerals as a bonded hydroxyl group--it isn't simply steam that condenses. You first have to fully melt the crystal mineral mush, extrude it, de-gas it, and there's your water. That would release heat that would boil the earth. The claim that your position does not work is valid.

2. Then there's the water canopy. First there was no way hydrogen could turn into a metalic like state. Then we found that it could and has been done(from another science website not a creation wesite). Then the problem was how would it get that cold. So I went back to God's word and saw that he created the world before light was shined on it. No light, no warmth. Which means it was absolute zero, which means another condition for this metallic hydrogen was met. But does anyone even give this a thought that lets see if we can figure out the last three parts of the puzzle to solve this? Again a flat out no it will not work!

It won't work because the heat released by the reaction of hydrogen and a bunch of oxygen you have yet to account for would be immense. Furthermore, you are assuming that this metal canopy would be over Earth for roughly a couple thousand years and somehow life is supposed to survive although it's been pointed out that that's not possible...especially at 0 kelvin.


These two things have been pointed out to you many times, and they are valid criticisms. It has nothing to do with biased scrutiny. The scrunity is perfectly reasonable. You just wave your hands around expecting everyone to accept it even though there are serious problems.



And finally: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41209.html

There are numerous points that falsify the global flood model. No creationist has been able to explain anything in this thread with a global flood. That's because those features could not exist if the earth is only 6,000 years old and all sedimentary features are the result of a flood for which there is not enough water in the first place.

So given what's in that linked thread, it doesn't matter if there WAS enough water or that the reactions required for your two points above would cook the earth thoroughly because a global flood and a young earth still don't account for what's in the thread.