New Creationist theory on how life spread out after the flood.

[EternalDragon]

Don't you love the flights of fantasy that YEC's have to go through to defend their beliefs?

In answer to your foolish question. No. But then it is merely a silly myth.

The Bible is not a deception by God since it was written by man. That is the something that creationists cannot understand. In fact part of the Bible could be true and yet the creation story false without "god lying". Once again the Bible was written by man, not God. No Christian has ever given evidence that God wrote the Bible. Its many flaws should tell you that it was not written by God. Instead you go into even more flights of fancy to defend your flawed work.

You asked if God created the Earth and the Earth looked old, wouldn't that be deception? I simply replied to your question by saying no, because the Bible clearly states that God made the Earth in a few days. The same as he made Adam and Eve in less than one day, fully adult.

God creating the earth and universe in a couple of days or God creating the Earth and universe slowly over a billions years.....both would look old. The second probably older.

 

[LastSeven]

That's how science works...existing understandings are challenged on the basis of new knowledge....if there weren't those 'disagreements' science would never progress our understanding of the world....

Yes. And understanding that concept means admitting that scientists are often wrong, even on issues they are adamant about, such as carbon dating, or evolution, or CO2 emissions, or the existence of God.

And believe me, the same thing happens in Christian circles. There are many debates between Christians on these forums, with each side being certain they are right, but every time at least one of them is very much wrong.

We all have to be humble enough to realize that we don't know it all, and as Christians we are commanded to humble ourselves before the Lord, but when it comes to the question of creationism vs evolution, no amount of debate is going to make a difference. It all boils down to faith.

If you don't have faith then nothing I can say will convince you that the world was intelligently designed and created. And as an atheist, you're o.k. with that because as far as you know it's nothing more than a matter of interest and a mildly amusing debate.

I believe however, that it is a matter of life and death. I have life in Jesus, but if you don't have faith, you are dead already and don't even know it. So it hurts me to see so many people living their lives without the knowledge of God. I can only pray that God will draw you closer to him.

 

[JGG]

I'm going to agree with LastSeven that we can't throw all creationists in the same boat. Volcanos exoding koalas looks ridiculous to OECs as well, as it should. I also cannot simply dismiss the concept of old earth creationism as readily as I do YEC. I cannot say they are wrong.

However, Creationism necessarily begins with the conclusion that God created the universe and then seeks evidence to support it, which to me is backwards and I cannot get on board with that methodology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would ask that question if I did not unceasingly believe that scripture is true. From my point of view there can not be any proof to the contrary, so for me to say that science has disproven nothing is about as honest as I can be.

Then you are not being scientific nor honest. Science does not assume the results first. It looks as the evidence and we can draw conclusions from that.

But regardless of your beliefs science has shown that there was no Adam and Eve. There was no Noah, no flood. The clear problem with a flood is that 5 miles of water would have left evidence. There is none. As far as any sort of worldwide flood, it would have left genetic evidence. It is not there. The evidence says that there was no worldwide reduction of population in the last 200,000 plus years.

Now if you want to believe in something that is supported by as much evidence as Santa Claus and debunked by much more evidence than that which debunks Santa go ahead. I am not stopping you. Just don't pretend that you are being scientific. That is not being honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. And understanding that concept means admitting that scientists are often wrong, even on issues they are adamant about, such as carbon dating, or evolution, or CO2 emissions, or the existence of God.

Show me when carbon dating is wrong. Make sure you know what you are doing when you try to do so. Show me when evolution is wrong, be prepared to earn a Nobel Prize. Show me how AGW is wrong. And lastly you are wrong since scientists do not deny the existence of god. They may not believe, but that is not the same as denying the existence of gods.

And believe me, the same thing happens in Christian circles. There are many debates between Christians on these forums, with each side being certain they are right, but every time at least one of them is very much wrong.

We all have to be humble enough to realize that we don't know it all, and as Christians we are commanded to humble ourselves before the Lord, but when it comes to the question of creationism vs evolution, no amount of debate is going to make a difference. It all boils down to faith.

If you don't have faith then nothing I can say will convince you that the world was intelligently designed and created. And as an atheist, you're o.k. with that because as far as you know it's nothing more than a matter of interest and a mildly amusing debate.

I believe however, that it is a matter of life and death. I have life in Jesus, but if you don't have faith, you are dead already and don't even know it. So it hurts me to see so many people living their lives without the knowledge of God. I can only pray that God will draw you closer to him.

And yet worldwide most Christians do believe the theory of evolution. Most have no problem with the universe being its age.

Evolution does not deny God, it only denies the god of fundamentalists.

 

[biggles53]

Yes. And understanding that concept means admitting that scientists are often wrong, even on issues they are adamant about, such as carbon dating, or evolution, or CO2 emissions, or the existence of God.

"Adamant" has no place in scientific enquiry. The raison d'être for scientists is to prove existing theories wrong....it's the best way to earn yourself a Nobel Prize and everlasting fame.....

Nor do scientists necessarily deny the existence of god/s. such a question simply doesn't apply to their field of study...

And believe me, the same thing happens in Christian circles. There are many debates between Christians on these forums, with each side being certain they are right, but every time at least one of them is very much wrong.

With more than 30 000 different 'flavours' in that religion, I'd be surprised if there weren't considerable differences...

We all have to be humble enough to realize that we don't know it all,

Agreed...

and as Christians we are commanded to humble ourselves before the Lord, but when it comes to the question of creationism vs evolution, no amount of debate is going to make a difference. It all boils down to faith.

When you start from the position that you already possess The Truth, I find it hard to see where humility is being practised...? Let me ask you this...do you concede that you could be wrong in your belief that a god exists...?

If you don't have faith then nothing I can say will convince you that the world was intelligently designed and created.

Au contraire.. Produce compelling evidence of a designer and you'll have a convert...! got any...?

And as an atheist, you're o.k. with that because as far as you know it's nothing more than a matter of interest and a mildly amusing debate.

Thank you for the free mind-reading....

I believe however, that it is a matter of life and death. I have life in Jesus, but if you don't have faith, you are dead already and don't even know it. So it hurts me to see so many people living their lives without the knowledge of God. I can only pray that God will draw you closer to him.

Tell me again about that humility you practise......?

 

[EternalDragon]

Then you are not being scientific nor honest. Science does not assume the results first. It looks as the evidence and we can draw conclusions from that.

But regardless of your beliefs science has shown that there was no Adam and Eve. There was no Noah, no flood. The clear problem with a flood is that 5 miles of water would have left evidence. There is none. As far as any sort of worldwide flood, it would have left genetic evidence. It is not there. The evidence says that there was no worldwide reduction of population in the last 200,000 plus years.

Now if you want to believe in something that is supported by as much evidence as Santa Claus and debunked by much more evidence than that which debunks Santa go ahead. I am not stopping you. Just don't pretend that you are being scientific. That is not being honest.

Yet the flood was probably a lot less than 5 miles deep. You are counting the height of mountains TODAY which could have been caused during the flood. The bible does say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.

 

[lasthero]

You are counting the height of mountains TODAY which could have been caused during the flood.

How does a flood cause mountains? Can you be specific and show some actual work?

 

[LastSeven]

When you start from the position that you already possess The Truth, I find it hard to see where humility is being practised...? Let me ask you this...do you concede that you could be wrong in your belief that a god exists...?

It's not arrogant to know the truth. Of course, I understand what you're saying. You and I don't agree on what the truth is, so it seems arrogant for me to assume that I'm right. However, as a man of faith, it is not even a matter of debate. I don't just think I'm right. I know I'm right.

If you have brown eyes, and I think your eyes are blue, can I call you arrogant for assuming that you're right? No, because it is a fact. You are right.

Do I concede that I could be wrong? No. That would be the opposite of faith, and that would make me insincere. I concede that I could be wrong about my interpretation of certain passages of scripture for example, but the basis of faith is non-negotiable. God exists.

 

[Lethe]

However, as a man of faith, it is not even a matter of debate. I don't just think I'm right. I know I'm right.

If you have brown eyes, and I think your eyes are blue, can I call you arrogant for assuming that you're right? No, because it is a fact. You are right.

Do I concede that I could be wrong? No. That would be the opposite of faith, and that would make me insincere.

And I know that observations that are just as certain as the color of my eyes, directly contradict YEC and OEC ideas. So I believe they are wrong. They could still be right, but it would involve an incredibly convoluted and long chain of exemptions to evidence and established reasoning that I consider it incredibly unlikely.

And to be sure, to claim that you cannot be wrong is pretty much the opposite of wisdom.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, the theory is ridiculous, but I'm just wondering what is your point of posting it?

Are you trying to make the point that because this is a ridiculous theory, that therefore there is no good explanation for how koalas came to Australia, and therefore creationists are wrong about creationism altogether?

Or are you just posting it so we can all have a good laugh? Because if that's all it is, then that's fine. Some people may get a chuckle out of this. But if you're actually trying to make a point then you're going to have to be more explicit, because I don't see it.

The purpose is likely to show just how far some will go to make a story fit, with a long held belief.

Evidence, logic and or common sense, is completely abandoned by those who display cognitive dissonance.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It's not arrogant to know the truth. Of course, I understand what you're saying. You and I don't agree on what the truth is, so it seems arrogant for me to assume that I'm right. However, as a man of faith, it is not even a matter of debate. I don't just think I'm right. I know I'm right.

This is why things need to be independently verifiable. Human beings can know they are right about all sorts of things and be utterly wrong. We've all experienced it ourselves. The history of the human race has been a struggle to work out ways of preventing us deluding ourselves. We are very good at deluding ourselves.

If you have brown eyes, and I think your eyes are blue, can I call you arrogant for assuming that you're right? No, because it is a fact. You are right.

You might both be wrong of course. But unless there is a way of checking the eye colour, the true colour of the eyes is unknown as you might both be colour blind.

Do I concede that I could be wrong? No.

Therein lies your problem.

That would be the opposite of faith, and that would make me insincere. I concede that I could be wrong about my interpretation of certain passages of scripture for example, but the basis of faith is non-negotiable.

That's why faith isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's just a glorified word for wishful thinking. Religion only makes a big fuss about it because it has nothing else.

God exists.

He exists for you in your head. But then Sherlock Holmes exists in my head. Outside in the real world there is no evidence that either has ever existed.

 

[Lethe]

That would be the opposite of faith, and that would make me insincere. I concede that I could be wrong about my interpretation of certain passages of scripture for example, but the basis of faith is non-negotiable.

That's why faith isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's just a glorified word for wishful thinking. Religion only makes a big fuss about it because it has nothing else.

This cannot be overstated: you have no clothes. You have no evidence that you would consider in opposition. You have nothing but faith. And faith is a glorification of ignorance.

 

[Split Rock]

Yet the flood was probably a lot less than 5 miles deep. You are counting the height of mountains TODAY which could have been caused during the flood. The bible does say that the fountains of the great deep were broken up.

So, I'll just add mountain building to the list of additions you have made to God's Word concerning the flood.

1. Volcanism
2. Meteor impacts
3. Earthquakes
3. Ice age
4. Mountain building.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar

 

[LastSeven]

Show me when carbon dating is wrong. Make sure you know what you are doing when you try to do so. Show me when evolution is wrong, be prepared to earn a Nobel Prize. Show me how AGW is wrong. And lastly you are wrong since scientists do not deny the existence of god.

I am no scientist but have read enough to know that these theories have huge holes in them. If you really cared to know you could spend a few weeks doing your own research.

Carbon dating assumes that the carbon that has been entering the earth's atmosphere has been doing so at a consistent rate. This is a huge assumption. It also assumes that the ratio between C12 and C14 has always been a constant. Without knowing the correct ratio, you can not know the correct age. Some scientists have even referred to the state of carbon dating as a crisis due to its unreliability and inaccuracy.

The founder of carbon dating himself even believed it would take no more than 30,000 years for the atmosphere on earth to reach equilibrium. Yet it still has not reached that state, which means the atmosphere can not be more than 30,000 years old.

For evolution, the onus is on the evolutionists to prove their theory correct which they have yet to do. The simple lack of "the missing link" should be enough to make you question evolution.

No creature has ever turned into anything new. Even the extremely fast life of the fruit fly has never yielded any evidence of evolution. Though there may be variations in creatures they always remain the same creature. A fish does not turn into a reptile. It's physically impossible. The odds of all the necessary molecules mutating at the same time to create legs are incredible and statistically impossible even over billions of years. It just wouldn't happen.

The theory of natural selection is supposed to explain "survivability" traits, yet humans have the ability to be artistic and musical and thoughtful for no apparent useful reason. Everything about the creatures on earth screams intelligent design, but I guess that's too obvious for the "scientists".

I don't even want to get started on global warming. There's just not enough information. And the fact that it's such a hugely political issue makes it incredibly susceptible to tampering, as we've seen with climategate and other UN sanctioned "studies". Personally I doubt that man made CO2 could affect the planet in such a drastic way that some people are predicting.

 

[CabVet]

The purpose is likely to show just how far some will go to make a story fit, with a long held belief.

Evidence, logic and or common sense, is completely abandoned by those who display cognitive dissonance.

What I fail to understand is why the need for such convoluted explanations, Why not just accept it as a miracle?

 

[CabVet]

I am no scientist but have read enough to know that these theories have huge holes in them.

The phrase above is not compatible with the one below.

If you really cared to know you could spend a few weeks doing your own research.

Yeah, if you really cared you would know what these theories (they are not theories by the way) are before you criticized them.

 

[bhsmte]

What I fail to understand is why the need for such convoluted explanations, Why not just accept it as a miracle?

IMO, because a part of their own psyche, needs something to grasp onto, no matter how goofy it sounds.

This is why christians have so many different explanations for everything.

 

[HitchSlap]

So, as an atheist, do you take the ridiculous theories of creationists as evidence that there is no "creation"? Or do you have actual evidence?

There is no actual evidence for a "Genesis creation story."

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, the theory is ridiculous, but I'm just wondering what is your point of posting it?

Are you trying to make the point that because this is a ridiculous theory, that therefore there is no good explanation for how koalas came to Australia, and therefore creationists are wrong about creationism altogether?

Or are you just posting it so we can all have a good laugh? Because if that's all it is, then that's fine. Some people may get a chuckle out of this. But if you're actually trying to make a point then you're going to have to be more explicit, because I don't see it.

Yes, ridiculous ideas should be ridiculed, much less taught to children as fact.