Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,

[Lakercom]

There is no empirical science available to directly show either evolution or the flood of Noah and Creation as true. There is primarily historical science to demonstrate the probability of either.

Scientists can do testing of the age of materials but this presents problems because of the presuppositions often assumed for such testing. One of these assumptions is the uniformity of earth’s natural history. Carbon 14 testing dates the earth at a maximum of 50,000 years but evolutionists never emphasize that because it is not convenient to the evolutionary community.

Creationists have done good research to indicate a young earth. The RATE project involved four separate research projects by Creation scientists of various disciplines that gave good results for a young earth and/or the difficulties involved with an old earth.

It would seem that “truth” can only be found by “who is the better ‘storyteller’”. I put my money on god and not the evolutionists. It seems both camps are in disarray. The church is producing more and more apostates that deny one of the foundations to understanding the truth – Creation and the source of original sin requiring repentance. The evolutionary camp is also suffering losses from deserters. The movie Expelled demonstrates how non-evolutionists are punished and, well, … expelled from the gravy train of jobs in the academic community.

 

[Wedjat]

Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research.

You just listed a ton of horrible sources just so you know. Unless, that is she wants religiously biased, non-credible information presented by laymen rather than actual professionals. In which case please, by all means, fill your head with this garbage.

If you want real answers read an actual peer reviewed journal, or at least a textbook. Sign yourself up for some classes in geology, biology, and cosmology. Ask questions to your professor, they will point you in the right direction.
Never stop looking for answers to your questions, just don't look in the wrong place.

 

[Wedjat]

There is no empirical science available to directly show either evolution or the flood of Noah and Creation as true. There is primarily historical science to demonstrate the probability of either.

False. Evidence for evolution is both historical and observed. Evidence for the flood is anecdotal at best.

Scientists can do testing of the age of materials but this presents problems because of the presuppositions often assumed for such testing. One of these assumptions is the uniformity of earth’s natural history. Carbon 14 testing dates the earth at a maximum of 50,000 years but evolutionists never emphasize that because it is not convenient to the evolutionary community.

Actually scientists know quite well what changes to the earths atmosphere have occured to change carbon-14 levels in the past, and they include these in their calculations. Creationists ignore this because it is inconvenient to the creationist community.

Creationists have done good research to indicate a young earth. The RATE project involved four separate research projects by Creation scientists of various disciplines that gave good results for a young earth and/or the difficulties involved with an old earth.

I've read about this no where other than creationist websites. A true discovery like the ones mentioned with the implications mentioned without alternative explanations would have caused quite a stir in the scientific community, something that clearly hasn't happened or I would have read about this somewhere else.

It would seem that “truth” can only be found by “who is the better ‘storyteller’”. I put my money on god and not the evolutionists. It seems both camps are in disarray. The church is producing more and more apostates that deny one of the foundations to understanding the truth – Creation and the source of original sin requiring repentance. The evolutionary camp is also suffering losses from deserters. The movie Expelled demonstrates how non-evolutionists are punished and, well, … expelled from the gravy train of jobs in the academic community.

Expelled was a joke. It was a disruptive movie with horrible arguments, out of context quotes, meaningless extrapolation, and outright lies.

 

[laconicstudent]

There is no empirical science available to directly show either evolution or the flood of Noah and Creation as true. There is primarily historical science to demonstrate the probability of either.

Of which the vast overwhelming majority would support Evolutionary theory

Scientists can do testing of the age of materials but this presents problems because of the presuppositions often assumed for such testing. One of these assumptions is the uniformity of earth’s natural history. Carbon 14 testing dates the earth at a maximum of 50,000 years but evolutionists never emphasize that because it is not convenient to the evolutionary community.

We do use other isotopes besides Carbon-14..... We can date things by measuring the decay of Potassium-40 to Argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. So your point is rather incorrect.


Why do people always assume radiometric dating only uses Carbon-14? Its such a silly idea.

Creationists have done good research to indicate a young earth.

Peer-review journal citation?

The RATE project involved four separate research projects by Creation scientists of various disciplines that gave good results for a young earth and/or the difficulties involved with an old earth.

Peer-review journal citation?

It would seem that “truth” can only be found by “who is the better ‘storyteller’”. I put my money on god and not the evolutionists.

Wrong. This isn't about God vs. Scientists. This is about people ignoring the science. I can adjust my interpretation of Genesis to fit in with the obvious evidence.

It seems both camps are in disarray.

Creationists, certainly. Science, on the other hand, continues to advance apace.

The church is producing more and more apostates

Probably because they belong to churches that insist that Science must lie. Its called disillusionment. Its unfortunate when they believe that they have to choose between God and what science has shown to be true, simply because their uneducated Pastors claim that there isn't any way to reconcile Evolution and a faith in God.

Actually, I think that someday those YEC pastors will have to answer for driving so many away from the Church with their virulent anti-science positions.

that deny one of the foundations to understanding the truth – Creation and the source of original sin requiring repentance.

You actually can believe in the Original Sin without believing in a literal creation, you know.

The evolutionary camp is also suffering losses from deserters.

No. Not really. The most recent poll from the National Center for Science Education puts pegs supporters versus Creationists/ID at 97% to 3%.

The movie Expelled demonstrates how non-evolutionists are punished and, well, … expelled from the gravy train of jobs in the academic community.

Expelled was a absolutely awful movie. It completely misrepresents the modern theories of evolution, takes statements made by Dawkins out of context, gets a lot of the science flat out wrong.

It also was notable in the fact that the producers flat out stole some of the music, and one animation sequence, called The Inner Life of a Cell, the copyrights to which are owned by XVIVO and Harvard.

I have nothing but contempt for the criminals who made Expelled.

 

[Wedjat]

And as far as carbon-14 dating the earth to 50,000 years, that is blatant misunderstanding.
Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, meaning in one unit of carbon-15, after 5730 years the amount of carbon-14 left will be 1/2 unit
after 11460 years there will be 1/4 unit
after 17190 years there will be 1/8

after ten divisions, the amount left is so small that it becomes difficult to record, so yes, carbon-14 cannot accurately date things over 50,000 years old, that does not mean that it dates the earth to be 50,000 years old, it just means it doesn't work past a certain point. We have other methods for dating older objects (such as using radioactive isotopes that degrade slower than carbon-14)

 

[laconicstudent]

I can't stand it when people talk about Expelled. Beyond just being blatantly wrong, the producers were flat-out criminals.

 

[godsmission]

I can't stand it when people talk about Expelled. Beyond just being blatantly wrong, the producers were flat-out criminals.

Which fits in well with the rest of creationism, it's organised and run by con men.

 

[laconicstudent]

Which fits in well with the rest of creationism, it's organised and run by con men.

It makes me so angry. The "Inner life of a Cell" animation took Harvard students and XVIVO 14 months and huge amounts of money to create, they released it for free on the internet for academic purposes. It was incredibly noble of Harvard and XVIVO to donate so much time and resources to such an amazing project purely for the benefit of the public...

...Then the Expelled producers come along and just rip it off, for their own little racket.

So yeah, Expelled is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt films to be shown in cinemas.

 

[godsmission]

It makes me so angry. The "Inner life of a Cell" animation took Harvard students and XVIVO 14 months and huge amounts of money to create, they released it for free on the internet for academic purposes. It was incredibly noble of Harvard and XVIVO to donate so much time and resources to such an amazing project purely for the benefit of the public...

...Then the Expelled producers come along and just rip it off, for their own little racket.

So yeah, Expelled is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest and bankrupt films to be shown in cinemas.

None of which would bother the people who think it's a good film because most of them are intellectually dishonest and bankrupt themselves, thinking about it what does it take to be a creationist?
firstly creationist parents, then a lack of imagination, a lack of education, a lack of decency and the inability to see when everything about it tells you it's wrong, you don't need to be smart to realise that something is wrong when your starting to tell blatant lies to protect it <staff edit> .

 

[laconicstudent]

None of which would bother the people who think it's a good film because most of them are intellectually dishonest and bankrupt themselves,

A bit of a generalization. And then there might be a few who really don't care either way, but would identify themselves as Creationists simply because that is what the pastor said to say. So they aren't necessarily themselves dishonest, its just that they perhaps don't care.

thinking about it what does it take to be a creationist?
firstly creationist parents, then a lack of imagination, a lack of education, a lack of decency and the inability to see when everything about it tells you it's wrong, you don't need to be smart to realise that something is wrong when your starting to tell blatant lies to protect it, <staff edit>.

Yep. Although a lot of them typically change their minds over time, especially if they go to college, and they are virtually guaranteed to if they enter any sort of science program

 

[Wedjat]

I think you might be starting to generalize

the "big" creationists like Ham and Comfort and Hovnid, yes they fit

But the common creationist just doesn't know the alternative, or only ignores it because the propaganda that the "big" creationists churn out is too deeply rooted. They don't lack decency all the time, and the lies that most tell are only the lies that were told to them.

 

[Wedjat]

fair enough.

 

[theFijian]

firstly creationist parents, then a lack of imagination,

yeh a lack of imagination, a bit like someone creating multiple sockpuppets and regurgitating the same arguments over and over.

 

[juvenissun]

Why in the world would it matter whether or not there were water floods on other worlds? We're talking about the evidence (or lack thereof, rather) for one specific flood on this planet.

Are you thinking about science or theology?

In order to get all the water needed, there must be a source of water. Where do you think the water come from on the moon? From the rocks, right? Should the earth work the same way? The moon probably had A LOT MORE water at earlier time and had a global flood there too.

People recognized the existence water on Europa, but very few asked the source of it. So, why should the earth be any different from Europa?

So you know the reason for the consideration.

--------

By the way, are you going to address my another thread about the blackhole and the Big Bang? Tell me what you think.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Are you thinking about science or theology?

In order to get all the water needed, there must be a source of water. Where do you think the water come from on the moon? From the rocks, right? Should the earth work the same way? The moon probably had A LOT MORE water at earlier time and had a global flood there too.

People recognized the existence water on Europa, but very few asked the source of it. So, why should the earth be any different from Europa?

So you know the reason for the consideration.

--------

By the way, are you going to address my another thread about the blackhole and the Big Bang? Tell me what you think.

Is there any actual relation between these various tidbits of facts and assertions? I can't see how this would show that there was a global flood on earth, even if everything you said was true, which I very much doubt (global flood on moon ).

 

[Loudmouth]

The moon probably had A LOT MORE water at earlier time and had a global flood there too.

Evidence please.

People recognized the existence water on Europa, but very few asked the source of it. So, why should the earth be any different from Europa?

Because there is not enough water on the Earth for it to be completely flooded. There is also the obvious lack of a global flood layer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because there is not enough water on the Earth for it to be completely flooded. There is also the obvious lack of a global flood layer.

A theory I just now thought up [okay, an hypothesis] that I think is viable is that there were HUGE underground water troughs that released water upwards during the Flood, possibly by God ever-so-gently squeezing Pangaea along its perimeter.

When Genesis 10 came around, and God segmented Pangaea into continents, they were segmented along the lines of these super-troughs.

Here is a map of Pangaea:

​

The lines you see on this map could be the super-troughs.

 

[juvenissun]

Evidence please.



Because there is not enough water on the Earth for it to be completely flooded. There is also the obvious lack of a global flood layer.

Evidence: All the water on the moon is found at one place. You tell me how did that happen.

Yes, there is more than enough water to flood the whole earth 1000 feet deep.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Evidence: All the water on the moon is found at one place. You tell me how did that happen.

Evidence please.

Yes, there is more than enough water to flood the whole earth 1000 feet deep.

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence: All the water on the moon is found at one place. You tell me how did that happen.

It isn't.

Yes, there is more than enough water to flood the whole earth 1000 feet deep.

Then the Earth should be covered by 1,000 feet of water. It isn't.