GAP Creationism VS YEC & OEC Creationism

[mzungu]

True. But not in terms of science, AV. But there are things you cannot do without proper knowledge - and hence without a proper education. A master's degree takes five years - typically. A phd takes a few more, depending on how you get it.

You cannot - without proper knowledge - do what these creationists try to do. It's pretty much analogous to a guy trying to build a car engine to compete with Lamborghini's - without even basic math or chemistry knowledge. It will not work. How can you guys not get that? You need to know what you're talking about, so how come you think that someone without a single year of relevant studies - not an ounce of relevant knowledge - can compete and even topple/crush the work and knowledge of many thousands of people who have each spent decades studying and working in the relevant fields? How can you be SO arrogant?

Sad as it is true; I find that most creationists suffer from Arrogance! It is a waste of time to even remind them that arrogance is a sin. I am sure that many of them are really nice people.

Debating with creationists is like knocking on a deaf man's door.

 

[AV1611VET]

True. But not in terms of science, AV.

I would venture to say that not one of you guys would dare tell Jesus to His face what you tell me.

I wonder how Jesus would react if an educatee would tell Him He couldn't walk on water, embed age, or preserve His words in a book?

Not to mention He didn't have a disciple named Matthew, His prophecies were written after the fact, and His people are nothing more than ignorant, bronze-age goat herders.

 

[AV1611VET]

Debating with creationists is like knocking on a deaf man's door.

Except you guys don't debate -- you vent.

I started noticing that when I started noticing that, even when we do agree with you guys -- we're wrong.

In addition, someone says something, and they are automatically wrong; then I come along and say the exact opposite, and I'm automatically wrong.

If we stick with the Bible, we're 'brainwashed'; if we make suppositions, we're 'backwater'.

No -- what you guys demand is strict 100% automatic agreement with what you say.

But even that's not good enough.

We have to agree with you for the same reasons you agree yourselves.

Case in point: My agreement that the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

That's not good enough, is it?

I have to agree that it is 4.57 billion years old because it has been in existence for 4.57 billion years; and I won't do that in a million years.

So, bring on the ad homs!

 

[Nathan Poe]

I would venture to say that not one of you guys would dare tell Jesus to His face what you tell me.

If he were alive today, we'd see

But since he was the most significant and important figure in human history, and you are at the exact opposite end of that spectrum, why should it surprise you that he'd be treated differently from you?

I wonder how Jesus would react if an educatee would tell Him He couldn't walk on water, embed age, or preserve His words in a book?

He'd probably say we were right -- and share a good laugh with us at how badly his modern-day "followers" have mangled his message.

I mean really, AV -- walking on water and embedding age -- doesn't Jesus mean anything else to you than parlor tricks?

(Don't bother answering)

Not to mention He didn't have a disciple named Matthew, His prophecies were written after the fact, and His people are nothing more than ignorant, bronze-age goat herders.

And aside from the "Matthew" part, how much of that isn't verified fact?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Case in point: My agreement that the earth is 4.57 billion years old.

That's not good enough, is it?

I have to agree that it is 4.57 billion years old because it has been in existence for 4.57 billion years; and I won't do that in a million years.

So it's only 4.57 billion years old if you get to redefine what it means to be 4.57 billion years old.

It's not an ad hom to tell you you don't get to redefine words to suit your fantasies -- or worse, suit other people's fantasies which you saw fit to hijack.

Nor is it an ad hom to explain to you -- ad nauseam -- the problem with your discussion style: You want us to care about what you believe, and treat what you believe as a serious topic worthy of discussion. We don't, and it's not.

 

[createdtoworship]

Too bad none of his degrees were in geology, though. Strange then that he wrote books like "The Genesis Flood," which claimed to refute most of modern geology. Even stranger that he authored this book with John C. Whitcomb.. a theologian will no science degrees whatsoever.

what do you think geological engineering is?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

what do you think geological engineering is?

Henry Morris, one of the main founders of modern YEC, was a hydraulic engineer. In other words a civil engineer who studied and taught about water flow. There is some relationship to geology but it is not exactly direct. Meanwhile he came up with hydrodynamic sorting in a totally failed attempt at a flood based explanation for the fossil record. I have studied some hydrodynamics and some biology and all I can say is that Morris's model is so absurd as to be laughable. He clearly was forced to forget or distort whatever he knew about hydrodynamics in his attempts reconcile the fossil record with the flood.

John Morris, who is the son of Henry Morris does have a Ph.D. in geological engineering.

The YEC form of creationism is totally different from OEC and "GAP" theory. As I have said many times you can't all be right but you can all be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

As I have said many times you can't all be right but you can all be wrong.

This reminds me:

Did you know we now have six major non-Bible explanations as to how we got our moon?

 

[createdtoworship]

Henry Morris, one of the main founders of modern YEC, was a hydraulic engineer. In other words a civil engineer who studied and taught about water flow. There is some relationship to geology but it is not exactly direct. Meanwhile he came up with hydrodynamic sorting in a totally failed attempt at a flood based explanation for the fossil record. I have studied some hydrodynamics and some biology and all I can say is that Morris's model is so absurd as to be laughable. He clearly was forced to forget or distort whatever he knew about hydrodynamics in his attempts reconcile the fossil record with the flood.

John Morris, who is the son of Henry Morris does have a Ph.D. in geological engineering.

The YEC form of creationism is totally different from OEC and "GAP" theory. As I have said many times you can't all be right but you can all be wrong.

I wasn't talking about Henry I was talking about John. He is the modern president of ICR. I just posted a video rebutting the Big bang version of the universe. I don't know how that applies to OEC and GAP but I am sure it does.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

This reminds me:

Did you know we now have six major non-Bible explanations as to how we got our moon?

And they may all be wrong. Science admits that hypotheses need to be tested and theories either rejected or refined as new data are accumulated and new analysis is performed. However, the creationist highly varied "models" are all based on a supposed literal interpretation of the same supposedly inerrant text.

 

[AV1611VET]

And they may all be wrong. Science admits that hypotheses need to be tested and theories either rejected or refined as new data are accumulated and new analysis is performed. However, the creationist highly varied "models" are all based on a supposed literal interpretation of the same supposedly inerrant text.

There are six theories.

Can you logically postulate that, at best, five are wrong; and at worst, all six are wrong?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I wasn't talking about Henry I was talking about John. He is the modern president of ICR. I just posted a video rebutting the Big bang version of the universe. I don't know how that applies to OEC and GAP but I am sure it does.

I assumed you meant Henry when you wrote this

John Morris the father of creationism has a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Tech (1969), a M.S., University of Oklahoma (1977), and a Ph.D., University of Oklahoma (1980) in Geological Engineering.

John Morris is in no sense the "father of creationism" which has been around for hundreds of years. However, his father Henry Morris did co-author a book, The Genesis Flood, in 1961, that was influential in reviving the nonsense of Young Earth Creationism and Henry Morris is sometimes called the father of "Creation Science", an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As to John Morris you can find links to rebuttals of many of his bogus young earth claims at the OEC site Answers in Creation.

Creation Science Profile, John Morris

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are six theories.

Can you logically postulate that, at best, five are wrong; and at worst, all six are wrong?

I wouldn't call them theories. They are all hypotheses that have been put forward at one time or another though they are sometimes called theories. One of them may be correct and IIRC one is really only a variation on the impact hypothesis so in one sense two could be at least partially correct but they could all be wrong. I consider that pretty unlikely. In my opinion the giant impact hypothesis is most likely correct and it is moving toward a consensus view these days, though there still are unanswered questions. We do know that however the moon formed it was about 4.5 billion years ago. We can also see Tidal Rhythmites that show it has been orbiting the earth for a long long time and thus has history as well as maturity.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can also see Tidal Rhythmites that show it has been orbiting the earth for a long long time and thus has history as well as maturity.

Not if we had two moons (or more) at one time.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not if we had two moons (or more) at one time.

Explain, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain, AV.

QV please: 1

(Okay, just kidding).

QV please: 1

 

[Nathan Poe]

QV please: 1

(Okay, just kidding).

QV please: 1

I know about the second moon hypothesis, AV -- I was asking how it shows the moon doesn't have history and maturity, as you said it did.

 

[createdtoworship]

I assumed you meant Henry when you wrote this



John Morris is in no sense the "father of creationism" which has been around for hundreds of years. However, his father Henry Morris did co-author a book, The Genesis Flood, in 1961, that was influential in reviving the nonsense of Young Earth Creationism and Henry Morris is sometimes called the father of "Creation Science", an oxymoron if there ever was one.

As to John Morris you can find links to rebuttals of many of his bogus young earth claims at the OEC site Answers in Creation.

Creation Science Profile, John Morris

this link from the site you mention says that "life could not have started from primordial soup" exactly what I was saying...

Creation Science Rebuttals, Institute for Creation Research, Dr. John's Q&A #6

 

[Jazer]

But since he was the most significant and important figure in human history, and you are at the exact opposite end of that spectrum, why should it surprise you that he'd be treated differently from you?

The last shall be first & the first shall be last. So I would imagine he is just where he wants to be according to what your saying.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The last shall be first & the first shall be last. So I would imagine he is just where he wants to be according to what your saying.

So AV's expecting glory worthy of Jesus to be heaped on him... for what, exactly?