Creationists: Explain Creation

[awstar]

Where did he claim his source was superior to Jesus? I didn't realize they were mutually exclusive...

Actually, he didn't claim anything -- he just ridiculed a post, and added a link to talk.origins. I just assumed that since he took the deliberate effort to ridicule someone's position, that he must think his position was far superior.
And since the position he was ridiculing was simply that Creationism is based on the word of God, he must have thought his position was superior to God's position.

Can we assume you too hold the Creationist position, since you are posting here?

 

[nyjbarnes]

Which creator?

The only O, O , O God/Creator possible.

Thanks for making me waste 1 minute 32 seconds with this post.

 

[RoboMastodon]

The only O, O , O God/Creator possible.

Thanks for making me waste 1 minute 32 seconds with this post.

What makes the Judeo-Christian God the only creator "possible". Are not Zulu, Nordic, and Hindu gods also not "possible"?

 

[w81minit]

What makes the Judeo-Christian God the only creator "possible". Are not Zulu, Nordic, and Hindu gods also not "possible"?

Indeed, why can't it be that all gods exist and all ways lead to heaven? Why can't everyone just believe what they want and in whom they wish? Imagine all people, living for today, you oo oooooo....
Maybe some day you'll join us.......
Opps! I forgot that due to the freezing process I have no inner monologue....Was I just singing there?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

First of which is the radiometric dating method. That of c-14. In fact there is no way to tell how old rocks are. The most popular and accepted way of dating is c-14 or carbon dating. Well unfortunately there is no carbon in rocks...you'll only find carbon in well carbon based lifeforms.

This is wrong in so many ways, and it illustrates just how disappointing it is trying to explain things to creationists. I KNOW people including myself have tried to explain radiometric dating to you and why it works previously, but you obviously learned NOTHING from that otherwise you wouldn't have made the above comments that illustrate you have no idea what you're talking about.

Carbon dating is not the most popular and accepted way of dating. On the contrary. It is only useful for the past 50,000 years and only for organics. That does nothing for the vast majority of geology. It's used mainly by anthropological archaeologists, not geologists. There are many other dating methods that are used by geologists.

Furthermore, it's not true that there is no carbon in rocks, strictly speaking. Limestone is a CARBONate rock. A principal constituent of limestone is calcite or aragonite whose formula (in a simplified manner) is CaCO3. Yes, there is carbon in this rock.

But back in reality, carbon dating is not used to date rocks for that very reason. It's used in varves, for example, because they contain organic material (remnant algae).

You've constructed a strawman argument out of ignorance---which is essentially: "we can't know how old rocks are because carbon dating won't tell us!" Well, that's not news to anyone here...except maybe creationists who don't know what they're talking about. That's why there are other dating methods like K-Ar, Sm-Nd, U-Pb, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc. more relevant to geologists.

It has been shown that radioactive halflifes can fluctuate.

Wrong. There are zero terrestrial, natural processes that affect half-lives.

This presents the 2nd problem, if I (cicularly) infer that the rock is just as old as the bones, now I have given life to the argument that the earth is as old as my biggest flub in Radiometric dating.

Wrong again. That's not circular at all. It also illustrates that you don't understand how rocks are dated. If there are cases when the fossil itself can be dated, the rock MUST be as old as that fossil. That's not circular and it's perfectly reasonable. But often, dating occurs in a different way.

You will never hear this part because it would shoot holes through not only evolution but the fact that the Earth not as old as Scientists would have you believe.

This might be convincing if you had the first clue about what you were talking about and actually educated yourself on the topic rather than regurgitating things from creationist websites.

Yeah it's all a massive conspiracy...give us a freaking break already.

The reality is that strata and fossilization is best explained by the method of a global flood.

Wrong. The sedimentary rock record CANNOT be explained by a global flood, and many examples as to WHY THAT IS have been given to you TIME AND TIME AGAIN and you ignore the VAST MAJORITY of them. So you see, it's hard to have much sympathy for you at this point. All I can conclude is that you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT because information has been given to you and you have ignored it because it contradicts your religious beliefs.

There is not enough water for a global flood and the sedimentary rock record is incompatible with a global flooding mechanism. Geologists have realized this for almost two centuries now. You're a bit behind the times.

This provides the correct conditions for fossilization, none of the other theories presented by scientists (meteor, volcano's earthquakes) do.

And again you have illustrated that you don't understand what geologists think about fossilization by saying that these are the mechanisms that scientists posit. Please learn about what you are trying to refute. You are making creationism look just as ridiculous as it is by illustrating complete ignorance on these topics.

Edited to add: I see you complaining a lot recently about people telling you that you aren't knowledgeable about such-and-such an area of science. Well, especially after a post like this one to which I responded, I can only conclude that those criticisms of your arguments are entirely justified. You are illustrating that you don't know much about anything that's being discussed here. And maybe if a lot of people here are telling you that, you should consider the possibility it might actually be true and you should endeavor to change that by reading relevant materials to educate yourself.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Indeed, why can't it be that all gods exist and all ways lead to heaven? Why can't everyone just believe what they want and in whom they wish? Imagine all people, living for today, you oo oooooo....
Maybe some day you'll join us.......
Opps! I forgot that due to the freezing process I have no inner monologue....Was I just singing there?

I said possible existence, not simultaneous existence. You avoided the question. What makes your god better than all the other gods various mytholgies have contrived.

 

[Lonnie]

Mechanical Bliss, and RoboMastodon

Please create/post in another topic/thread other than this one, this thread is suppost to be only pro creation, that way you can read it, and argue against/for creation while knowing what the person you are arguing against(in a differnt thread), believes and why.

Thank you

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

If you want a thread to be "pro creation" only, then you should have posted it in the creationist only forum. However I have no intention of letting such blatant falsehoods being distributed so freely as if they are factual. It only serves as a breeding ground for ignorance. Perhaps you should take the time to read my response and try to learn from it rather than complaining that it exists.

 

[michabo]

You've constructed a strawman argument out of ignorance---which is essentially: "we can't know how old rocks are because carbon dating won't tell us!" Well, that's not news to anyone here...except maybe creationists who don't know what they're talking about. That's why there are other dating methods like K-Ar, Sm-Nd, U-Pb, Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, etc. more relevant to geologists.

MB, if I could rep you again, I would. But as I can't, I can try to get your words read a second time. They certainly bear repeating.

And again you have illustrated that you don't understand what geologists think about fossilization by saying that these are the mechanisms that scientists posit. Please learn about what you are trying to refute. You are making creationism look just as ridiculous as it is by illustrating complete ignorance on these topics.

 

[Lonnie]

" by saying that these are the mechanisms that scientists posit. Please learn about what you are trying to refute. You are making creationism look just as ridiculous as it is by illustrating complete ignorance on these topics."

That is why I started this thread/topic, and its twin thread for evolutionists, so we can learn what each others beliefs are and why they believe what they do.

Please, this is not the thread to argue in, please start/post in a different thread/topic if you want to do that.

Thank you

"only, then you should have posted it in the creationist only forum. However I have no intention of letting such blatant falsehoods being distributed so freely as if they are factual. It only serves as a breeding ground for ignorance. Perhaps you should take the time to read my response and try to learn from it rather than complaining that it exists."

If you want to argue over it, then CREATE your own thread (and/or topic) and discuss it there, this is not the thread.

I requested in the Begining of the thread not post here if you are a evolutionist. I thought both sides could learn eachothers beliefs.

Thank you for your cooperation

 

[Ryal Kane]

While creating two threads for evdence is essentially a good way to stop things falling apart into a slugfest, you should keep in mind that neither side will be able to refute what the other claims.
If one side presents evidence that can be refuted by the other, or even worse, has been refuted to the personal poster wel.. things can unfortuunately get messy.

If I may make an observation, I have seen only a few brief suggestions of why to believe in creationism on this thread. It has mainly consisted of 'why evololution is wrong'.
Lonnie asked for 'why creationism is right' and if creationism is supported by science, they should be able to present science in response to his reasonable request.

Ryal Kane

 

[mikeynov]

The creationist position is, essentially:

"The bible is the ultimate authority in terms of truth as it is God's revealed word. My interpretation is that it says <X>, and since <X> precludes evolution or an old earth, these cannot be factual."

However, even creationists realize that this won't convince people, so they don't stop there.

Creationism is largely propagated by misinformation, misquotes, disingenuous gurus. "Creation science" had to be invented for our modern culture in an effort to bridge the gap between "believe it cause my interpretation of the bible makes it so" to "hey, I got this science that totally proves the bible is true!"

The thing I find a bit disconcerting is the complete lack of honesty in people who should know better, and this usually stems from the "gurus" in creationism, which include people like Behe, Morris, "Dr." Hovind, the entire staffs of ICR and AIG etc. People reading these sites accept this information as authoritative for various reasons, but I don't actually believe that the average creationist is dishonest.

The dishonesty, I think, is the root of the problem, and on the internet, more times than not, you see parrotted opinions from various web sources which propagate this information, more often than not with the person propagating it having NO background in science or the faintest clue of what he or she is speaking of.

This sort of thing isn't limited to creationism, however, it applies to a variety of fields, including "alternative" medicine, nutrition/fitness, etc.

I realize Lonnie was asking for creationists to insert their .02 about 'why' they believe things, but it's hard to read all of the misinformation about science and evolutionary theory (which, like most creationist 'proof,' becomes the focus of the position) and not speak up, particularly when the 'point' of this forum, if there is one, is open dialogue between those who believe in creationism and those who embrace evolutionary theory.

What needs to be made totally clear is that you are not choosing God over man, you are choosing certain men over other men. You have been offered a narrative you found appealing with a particular spin put upon it by certain individuals who are capitalizing on your ignorance of science and biology in order to advance their own selfish agendas. These people earn fame and wealth by you propagating their outright lies.

 

[Arikay]

Just thought I would point out I made this thread to help keep some things more organized.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9237292

 

[awstar]

Just thought I would point out I made this thread to help keep some things more organized.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9237292

Thank you, Arikay, for showing respect to Lonnie's request in his opening post.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The only O, O , O God/Creator possible.

Which one is that?

Thanks for making me waste 1 minute 32 seconds with this post.

It's only a waste because you didn't provide an answer.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, he didn't claim anything -- he just ridiculed a post, and added a link to talk.origins. I just assumed that since he took the deliberate effort to ridicule someone's position, that he must think his position was far superior.

In return, you claimed that He claimed his position was "superior to the Word of God."

Since Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the "Word of God" and I did not see him mentioned in the post you were commenting on, I was wondering what you were basing your claim on.

And since the position he was ridiculing was simply that Creationism is based on the word of God, he must have thought his position was superior to God's position.

Again, on what basis are you draggin Jesus into this?

Can we assume you too hold the Creationist position, since you are posting here?

That would be a very unwise assumption, seeing as how this is an open forum.

 

[Lonnie]

"While creating two threads for evdence is essentially a good way to stop things falling apart into a slugfest, you should keep in mind that neither side will be able to refute what the other claims. "
~ Ryal Kane

That is why they can create there own Topics/Threads to refute it. This thread is here so you can learn why each sides believes what it does.

"Just thought I would point out I made this thread to help keep some things more organized."
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9237292

Thanks Arikay, that is what I was hoping(and asking) people to do instead of refuting it here.

 

[w81minit]

I said possible existence, not simultaneous existence. You avoided the question. What makes your god better than all the other gods various mytholgies have contrived.

Because where mine is concerned there is documented evidence that He intervenes on behalf of man.
My favorite one is when the prophets of baal tried to match strength with Elija.
They prayed and danced and begged, and cut themselves to get Baal to burn up the offering they made.
Elija with a simple request got Jehovah God to consume his offering with fire even though it was drenched with water. All he had to do was ask.
Then, in a more powerful refutation of Baal, Jehovah God sent fire to consume the prophets of Baal.
So much for Baal being a possibility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello everyone!

Hey, Lonnie!

I want to learn more about creation so I know why I belive it(or why I dont belive it).

Great!

You've come to the right place!

So can you please show me why I should belive in creation?

The Bible says it, that settles it.

And I want to learn why you belive in creation.

Ibid.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hello everyone!

I want to learn more about creation so I know why I belive it(or why I dont belive it). So can you please show me why I should belive in creation?

And I want to learn why you belive in creation.(so please post why you belive in evolution)

(please use outside sources(not from this site) to back up your statements)

Thank you!

Here are some of my reasons.

1. In Mindless Evolution we have no reason for the universe to have a beginning at all. It is a chance event with no purpose in mind.

Science that supports Theism's claim: Scientists capture first ever signal from the beginning of the Universe

2. In Christianity we should find evidence that the universe has very precise laws that govern the universe that we can understand. These laws for this universe for life forms such as we find on earth are necessary for these life forms and the universe itself to exist. The appearance of design supports actual design,.

2. In Mindless Evolution we find no reason for the precision of the laws of physics or that can be understood by life forms created with no purpose or goal by chance themselves. In ME it is an illusion of design.

Science that supports Theism's claim: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? - The Nature of Reality

3. In Christianity we should find life on earth as an expected and purposed event. The first life should have an appearance of design. The cell on its own shows great design elements.The workings of the single cell shows great purpose and design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbycQf1TbM0&feature=youtu.be

3. In Mindless evolution life came into existence from lifeless (non-intelligent matter) – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin. Abiogenesis is so improbable as to be thought almost impossible. ME has no reason for such purpose and design of the cell. Appearance of design is an illusion.

Science that supports Theism's claims: The Inner Life Of The Cell. The Human Cell Animation. XVIVO

4. In Christianity we should see the foundation of all life having a common design and that design should show purpose and appear to be designed. DNA is the common design of all living forms and holds all the information for life forms within it. DNA is life's information manual. It makes much more sense for an intelligent designer to provide an inherent information manual for life.

4. In Mindless Evolution there is no intelligence behind the information in DNA let alone for the existence of it. DNA has purpose and goals. Something not inherent in ME. How does purpose and goals incorporate into a process without purpose and goals? Appearance of design is an illusion.

Science that supports Theism's claims: How Much Information is Stored in the Human Genome? | Bitesize Bio

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram | ExtremeTech

5. In Christianity we should see a period of time on earth where the waters swarm with abundant life. We find in the Cambrian Era an explosion of life that contains all phyla of life we find today. We find complex eyes and even brains.

5. In Mindless Evolution we should not find a period of life that has no precursors for the life forms found. We should find a gradual changes over long periods of time from life form to life form.



(Evolutionists, please dont post here, I just want to ask Creationists)[/quote]