Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[Nathan Poe]

QV PLEASE --- specifically the part in red.

What you claim, and what we believe, are two different things, AV.

You expect us to believe that YEC is too difficult a position for you to defend? Who are you attempting to kid?

You've already got 99% of the the YEC position down pat: "The Bible says so -- that settles it."

The only thing left for you to do is to claim that the sum total of scientific knowledge which even threatens to undermind thier literalism is either:

• interpreted incorrectly,
• unreliable, or
• a deliberate attempt to deceive us by the evil Satanic Atheistic Scientific community.

And let's face it, AV, you already do this every time you mockingly put "science" (meaning any science you disagree with) in quotation marks. To wear the YEC mantle honestly, all you'd have to do is do this more often.

Kindly stop pretending that YEC is a difficult position to defend, because the only thing which really contradicts YEC is reality.

And reality, as you've already said, can take a hike.

You're just afraid that by becoming "just another YEC," you won't be special anymore.

Too late.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And if it wasn't for that --- we wouldn't have mottos like ---

• God said it --- that settles it.

--- would we?

Spoken like a true YEC. See how easy it is?

Your Kung Fu is getting stronger, Grasshopper.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're just afraid that by becoming "just another YEC," you won't be special anymore.

Trying to convince me to arbitrarily become a YEC isn't gonna work, Nathan. I might be at YEC's door, but that door, as far as I'm concerned, is locked. And if you got the key, then show it.

And let me give you a hint, that key is not Nike's slogan.

 

[Assyrian]

Why not move over to TE? All you have to do is realise God embedded the 13.7 billion years into the universe by creating it 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why not move over to TE?

QV PLEASE

All you have to do is realise God embedded the 13.7 billion years into the universe by creating it 13.7 billion years ago.

I think I'll just stay where I'm at, until I'm convinced otherwise.

 

[Nathan Poe]

QV PLEASE

So, is giving the Earth 4.5 billion years of age which didn't happen against the Bible?

I think I'll just stay where I'm at, until I'm convinced otherwise.

Problem is, AV, where you're at is on the fence, somewhere between the Bible and reality.

IIRC, Jesus wasn't all that fond of fence-sitters -- something about them being lukewarm, or some such...?

 

[Assyrian]

QV PLEASE

I think I'll just stay where I'm at, until I'm convinced otherwise.

QV:

Here are my Four Biblical Refutations Against Evolution:

1. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

• The Bible portrays this universe as having been in existence for approximately 6100 years. This is much too short a time for evolution to work.

(1) The bible never says the earth is 6100 yeas old or that the Genesis days are to be taken as literal or even consecutive. As we have seen the evidence we have from scripture is that even Moses himself didn't take God's days literally.
(2) You already believe the universe is genuinely 13.7 billion years old and you don't think this contradicts scripture,

2. GOD'S CREATION LEFT NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

• Six times in Genesis 1, God pronounces his Creation "good". Then He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good".
• Evolution, on the other hand, demands room for improvement.

God making a series of changes to the world, each labeled 'good', tells us there was continuous room for improvement during the creation. It is why God kept creating. Labeling the last works as 'very good' suggests it was even better than the previous 'good' works. Again, an improvement on earlier works which were simply 'good'. There is no basis in scripture for the claim.

3. THERE WAS NO DEATH IN GENESIS ONE.

There is no mention of death in Genesis one. That does not mean death did not exist or was not part of the natural order God made. It is simply an argument form silence. Other creation accounts like Job 38 and Psalm 104 do mention predation which God takes credit for.

• The Bible portrays death as an enemy of God.
• [bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]
• Evolution, on the other hand, works by leaving a trail of death behind.

Did God create an enemy that needed to be destroyed? Satan is an enemy of God, yet you see no problem with believing he was originally part of God's good creation. The fact that death is now an enemy after mankind has sinned and death cuts him off from God, does not mean that death was always God's enemy.

4. JESUS TAUGHT CREATION.

• [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]
• Jesus takes Genesis One literally --- in fact --- He wrote it.

Jesus taught creation. He did not teach Creationism, Young Earth Creationism, or embedded time

In the first passage you quote Jesus was teaching about marriage and divorce. What we see is Jesus interpreting the Genesis account as an allegorical lesson in marriage rather than him advocating literalism. Creationists assume Jesus is talking about the beginning of the creation of the earth, but that is taking the passage out of context. He was talking about human beings and marriage. The beginning of creation may refer the creation of the human race, or can be translated the first human creatures. It does not refer to the creation of the world, which is the wrong context and even contradicts literal six day creationism because people were not created until the end of the creation week.

In neither of the verses does Jesus refer to a six day creation or Adam being made out of dust.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did God create an enemy that needed to be destroyed? Satan is an enemy of God, yet you see no problem with believing he was originally part of God's good creation.

Yes I do --- God did not create Satan, per se; God created Lucifer. You cannot find Satan in Genesis 1. In fact you'll find him in Job 38 singing and praising God for His Creation.

[bible]Job 38:6-7[/bible]

It is later --- sometime between Genesis 1 and Genesis 4 --- that he becomes Satan.

The beginning of creation may refer the creation of the human race, or can be translated the first human creatures.

If it does, then we have a big problem. It would require Eve to have been made first - then Adam; but the Scriptures say differently.

[bible]1 Timothy 2:13[/bible]

The Allegorical Method of interpreting Genesis 1 is baloney.

 

[Skaloop]

If it does, then we have a big problem. It would require Eve to have been made first - then Adam; but the Scriptures say differently.

It wouldn't require that at all. The oldest common human ancestor we are currently able to determine is a female, but that's due to the methods used. It's entirely reasonable that the "first human" was male.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes I do --- God did not create Satan, per se; God created Lucifer.

Apart from little detail like Lucifer being a mistranslation the AV borrowed from the Vulgate and the Isaiah passage probably not being about Satan in the first place... However that is a side issue.

You cannot find Satan in Genesis 1. In fact you'll find him in Job 38 singing and praising God for His Creation.

[bible]Job 38:6-7[/bible]

It is later --- sometime between Genesis 1 and Genesis 4 --- that he becomes Satan.

But whatever his title, you do seem to realise that the angel himself existed before he rebelled, and that he was originally created by God. The fact that death and Satan are both enemies of God now, does not mean they were always enemies of God or that they could not have been part of God's creation. 1Cor 15:26 is not even talking about the creation of the world and simply does not say anything about whether there was death or not in Gen 1.

The beginning of creation may refer the creation of the human race, or can be translated the first human creatures.

If it does, then we have a big problem. It would require Eve to have been made first - then Adam;

No idea where you get this from.

but the Scriptures say differently.

[bible]1 Timothy 2:13[/bible]

The Allegorical Method of interpreting Genesis 1 is baloney.

Wonderful passage that. Paul is taking the Genesis story and using it as an allegorical lesson on the relationship between man and woman. I find when Creationist quote this passage they always leave out the last verse because it is just so weird if you try to take it literally. 1Tim 2:15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

For an interpretive method that is baloney, it certainly was popular in the NT. You know it almost seems unfair. Creationists love to back up their literal interpretation by quoting where the NT, even Jesus himself, quotes from Genesis. The only problem is they keep picking passages where Genesis is being used allegorically. They just line the ducks up. But the point is, we need to understand how the bible teaches us to understand God's word.

 

[Assyrian]

It wouldn't require that at all. The oldest common human ancestor we are currently able to determine is a female, but that's due to the methods used. It's entirely reasonable that the "first human" was male.

Oh I get it. You think he was talking mitochondria.

No AV science does not say the first human woman lived 40,000 years before the first man. You think that would be a problem with Genesis? It would be an even bigger problem for ordinary reproductive biology.

 

[Skaloop]

Oh I get it. You think he was talking mitochondria.

It's what I assumed, but with AV, one can never be sure.

 

[RobertByers]

Chordateslegacy
You add on too much information for a intelligent discussion.
You just make comments about what you read in books.

The whole point of geology is how earth formations came and continue to come.
Sedimentary rock and volcanic rock is so from sudden events. The creation of rocks has not been witnessed by definition of your position. Your just guessing it takes a long time with a heavy load under water.
creationist geology says simply it took a short period of time.
The presure of water on sediment created rock out of underlying sediment. Fast .

If rock is from animal remains well fine. It fits a creationist model of massive death and collection. Old news.

Your delta picture said nothing.

your miocene and other ages are simplely diveded by events. Miocene was post flood and pleistcene (sp) was during/after the ice age. centuries later.
No problem here.
Again however we need to concentrate on a few points.
Why not start with your best point. And go grom there.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Chordateslegacy
You add on too much information for a intelligent discussion.
You just make comments about what you read in books.

The whole point of geology is how earth formations came and continue to come.
Sedimentary rock and volcanic rock is so from sudden events. The creation of rocks has not been witnessed by definition of your position. Your just guessing it takes a long time with a heavy load under water.
creationist geology says simply it took a short period of time.
The presure of water on sediment created rock out of underlying sediment. Fast .

If rock is from animal remains well fine. It fits a creationist model of massive death and collection. Old news.

Your delta picture said nothing.

your miocene and other ages are simplely diveded by events. Miocene was post flood and pleistcene (sp) was during/after the ice age. centuries later.
No problem here.
Again however we need to concentrate on a few points.
Why not start with your best point. And go grom there.

Yes we have drifted from the point.

So let’s take a step back.

YEC state sediments are turned into rocks instantly.

Scientists including geologist’s state sediments take long periods of time to form rocks in what is called the rock cycle.

Above is a diagram showing the main principles of the rock cycle used by geologists in explaining the geological history of the earth.

This is my starting point, I would like you to do the same and supply a diagram outlining the main principles of the YEC rock cycle.

So the discussion can begin.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The Allegorical Method of interpreting Genesis 1 is baloney.

So you are a YEC after all -- just be a man and admit it already.

 

[flatworm]

Sedimentary rock and volcanic rock is so from sudden events.

The presence of dessication cracks, lake varves, calcite deposites, dessication cracks, animal tracks proves you wrong, as does radiometric dating. You have never replied substantively to any of the above.

 

[RobertByers]

Yes we have drifted from the point.

So let’s take a step back.

YEC state sediments are turned into rocks instantly.

Scientists including geologist’s state sediments take long periods of time to form rocks in what is called the rock cycle.

Above is a diagram showing the main principles of the rock cycle used by geologists in explaining the geological history of the earth.

This is my starting point, I would like you to do the same and supply a diagram outlining the main principles of the YEC rock cycle.

So the discussion can begin.

This diagram is fine for the creationist side. We just speed it up.
The interpretation of this diagram is not from witnessing anything but simply analysising rock composition and figuring out the origin.
Igneius and metamorphoric rock is from the flood year, mostly, and much of the sed rock likewise. All from sudden events. Creationisam and your side only contend about time and not method of rock creation.

In fact I've been reading a bio on Hutton and its dumb crazy how
He and others there fought creationist geologists , who were the actual creators of these studies at the start, on the minor points that folded rock had to represent old age and the biblical stuff was wrong. How iff founded is old age ism by geology evidence.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This diagram is fine for the creationist side. We just speed it up.

How?

The interpretation of this diagram is not from witnessing anything but simply analysising rock composition and figuring out the origin.
Igneius and metamorphoric rock is from the flood year, mostly, and much of the sed rock likewise. All from sudden events. Creationisam and your side only contend about time and not method of rock creation.

Are your saying that all igneous and metamorphic rock and much of the sedimentary rocks were created in one year????

Why don't you start by telling us exactly which rocks are preflood, which are flood and which are post flood?

In fact I've been reading a bio on Hutton and its dumb crazy how
He and others there fought creationist geologists , who were the actual creators of these studies at the start, on the minor points that folded rock had to represent old age and the biblical stuff was wrong. How iff founded is old age ism by geology evidence.

Perhaps you should read the History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth by evangelical Christian Davis Young.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

This diagram is fine for the creationist side. We just speed it up.
The interpretation of this diagram is not from witnessing anything but simply analysising rock composition and figuring out the origin.
Igneius and metamorphoric rock is from the flood year, mostly, and much of the sed rock likewise. All from sudden events. Creationisam and your side only contend about time and not method of rock creation.

In fact I've been reading a bio on Hutton and its dumb crazy how
He and others there fought creationist geologists , who were the actual creators of these studies at the start, on the minor points that folded rock had to represent old age and the biblical stuff was wrong. How iff founded is old age ism by geology evidence.

OK; we can start by agreeing that this diagram works for both geologists and YEC.

Can we know agree that the rock cycle starts with the production of magma, particularly at oceanic ridges. This is where basaltic magma is erupted to form new oceanic crust.

Here’s a link to basaltic magma production. LINK

Can we also agree that the mantle (Asthenosphere in this diagram) is solid.

 

[Chalnoth]

This diagram is fine for the creationist side. We just speed it up.
The interpretation of this diagram is not from witnessing anything but simply analysising rock composition and figuring out the origin.
Igneius and metamorphoric rock is from the flood year, mostly, and much of the sed rock likewise. All from sudden events. Creationisam and your side only contend about time and not method of rock creation.

In fact I've been reading a bio on Hutton and its dumb crazy how
He and others there fought creationist geologists , who were the actual creators of these studies at the start, on the minor points that folded rock had to represent old age and the biblical stuff was wrong. How iff founded is old age ism by geology evidence.

Heh, when you try to speed up natural processes by factors of a million to a billion, things tend to get absurd. For example, if you compress the tectonic movements since the last pangaea into a single year (as many flood geologists do), you end up with so much friction from the moving of the continents in that year to evaporate the oceans.