Proof of Creation?

[DerelictJunction]

Good question. You should be asking scientists that question about
a lot of stuff they assume to be true and pass off as fact.

True, we should.

I find it amazing that these guesswork "scientists" have made any advancements at all since they don't really know what they are doing.
Indeed, since the scientists investigating the age of the earth and the past ecological systems claim to be using the same scientific method as the ones that perform chemistry, physics and materials research, there must be something wrong with the method. Or...maybe all those paleontologists, geologists and biologists are lying when they claim to be using the scientific method.
What do you think...all the geologists, paleontologists and biologists are in some kind of vast conspiracy? or is the scientific method itself flawed to the point that it cannot be used to identify ideas so obviously false that a layman such as yourself can see it?

If you had only one assumption posing as "fact" to question scientists about, what would it be and how would you show them that it is an assumption?

 

[EternalDragon]

So, you don't have any evidence it's a flood layer, you don't know when it starts or stops, but you know it's there. Right.

I can't help but notice you skipped Junction's questions, ED. In case you missed them:

I didn't skip them. You can't accurately determine the age of rocks.

DeYoung, D.B., Thousands Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005.

 

[keith99]

Good question. You should be asking scientists that question about
a lot of stuff they assume to be true and pass off as fact.

Huh?

Scientists should say when a global flood they say never happened starts and ends in the fossil record!

A new low in logic from the creationist camp.

 

[lasthero]

I didn't skip them. You can't accurately determine the age of rocks.

Why not? Because you say so?

Let's you're right. That still doesn't address Junction's questions. If the layers were all made at one time, why do they have different radiometric dates? More to the point, why do the dates increase as you go lower into the column? Just saying we can't date them accurately doesn't explain this correlation.

DeYoung, D.B., Thousands Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005.

Did you even read this book? If you didn't, I found a review you might like.

http://www.oldearth.org/bookreview/tnb/thousands_not_billions_review.htm

 

[EternalDragon]

Why not? Because you say so?

Let's you're right. That still doesn't address Junction's questions. If the layers were all made at one time, why do they have different radiometric dates? More to the point, why do the dates increase as you go lower into the column? Just saying we can't date them accurately doesn't explain this correlation.

Did you even read this book? If you didn't, I found a review you might like.

Creation Science Book Review, Thousands...Not Billions

I'm going to take a guess and say that you know less than I know about the subject at hand.

 

[lasthero]

I'm going to take a guess and say that you know less than I know about the subject at hand.

I can't help but notice you're not answering the questions.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I didn't skip them. You can't accurately determine the age of rocks.

DeYoung, D.B., Thousands Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005.

Isn't that the book where D.B. DeYoung references the RATE research that admits that, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay has occurred in the rocks of the Earth using today's decay rates. Along with that admission, the RATE report also concedes that if all that decay had happened in less than 10,000 years, the radiation and heat given off would have boiled off the oceans, melted the Earth's crust and destroyed all life.

Strange that D.B. DeYoung doesn't mention that part of the report in his book, don't ya think?

 

[EternalDragon]

Isn't that the book where D.B. DeYoung references the RATE research that admits that, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay has occurred in the rocks of the Earth using today's decay rates. Along with that admission, the RATE report also concedes that if all that decay had happened in less than 10,000 years, the radiation and heat given off would have boiled off the oceans, melted the Earth's crust and destroyed all life.

Strange that D.B. DeYoung doesn't mention that part of the report in his book, don't ya think?

Nothing decayed that fast.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nothing decayed that fast.

Well, to be frank, there are materials with decay rates that are below the minute mark. The point was, there are signs of decay that, were it to occur within the past 10,000 years, would have made life on earth impossible.

 

[Smidlee]

I take that as a concession you are in fact cool with an earth that is over 4 billion years old.

As I stated before the earth could be both old and young at the same time.

Lets wait and see what God has in mind. He'll do it right. For example, the "judgement by fire" might actually involve widespread nuclear war.

You didn't really answer the question. So you really believe God is going to nuke the earth before creating the new heaven and earth?

 

[Tina W]

The word for "replenish" is male, with some funny accent things over the a and e. It can be translated "fill", "filled" or "refill".

It is translated "refill" 7 times in the bible, "fill" 33 times, "filled" 73 times and "full" 97 times.

If there was a gap in the verses, and evolution took place, the evolutionary "data" would have been destroyed since the Bible describes the earth as without form and void. Therefore the fossil record would not exist.

So, you have to believe that there was no gap that would allow for evolution or a preadamic race. What exists in the fossil record exists from what happened after the "earth was without form and void"

No, things that were embedded and buried within the ground and rocks etc would still survive after the gap. The only way they would not survive is if the whole planet was destroyed and it wasn't completely destroyed, something was left after the Gap that God then restored to start life for us with Adam & Eve.

 

[JacksBratt]

Um, no. Many of those dead things in the fossil record were buried
while still alive by water and sediment. The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

You are correct, post "without form and void" and more accurately, post flood.

 

[JacksBratt]

As I stated before the earth could be both old and young at the same time.


You didn't really answer the question. So you really believe God is going to nuke the earth before creating the new heaven and earth?

When He wants to destroy the earth, all He will have to do is loose the attraction of the neutrons and protons in the nucleaus of all atoms. After all He is the one that IS this force.

 

[JacksBratt]

No, things that were embedded and buried within the ground and rocks etc would still survive after the gap. The only way they would not survive is if the whole planet was destroyed and it wasn't completely destroyed, something was left after the Gap that God then restored to start life for us with Adam & Eve.

Sorry Tina, I dissagree. I'm still going with the literal six days, God forming Adam, the first human man, with His hands, breathing life into his nostrils and then making Eve from Adams rib. No humans before, no morphing into humans. No death before and all animals made individually in their adult state. No evolving from some unknown spark of life.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry Tina, I dissagree. I'm still going with the literal six days, God forming Adam, the first human man, with His hands, breathing life into his nostrils and then making Eve from Adams rib. No humans before, no morphing into humans. No death before and all animals made individually in their adult state. No evolving from some unknown spark of life.

Then why does it appear to have happened this way?

 

[Tina W]

Sorry Tina, I dissagree. I'm still going with the literal six days, God forming Adam, the first human man, with His hands, breathing life into his nostrils and then making Eve from Adams rib. No humans before, no morphing into humans. No death before and all animals made individually in their adult state. No evolving from some unknown spark of life.

I believe like you do, I don't believe humans evolved from lower species. I believe Adam was the first man and that God created Adam & Eve and breathed into them just like the Bible says. I just believe that some other stuff might have happened on this planet before God made us on it. Like for example after Jesus returns and after judgment and after all of mankind is in either Heaven or hell, what will become of planet earth? I think the planet will sit dormant, and empty (void) for a number of years and then one day God will say "Let there be light" and He will start a new creation that may or may not look like us and will tell them to refill the earth and if they are intelligent they will look at fossil records and wonder about the remains of US and debate if WE ever really existed or not. Science can't find a missing link between us and apes or lower species because there is no link. Other species or life forms may have lived on this planet long before the history of mankind began and life forms and other species may be created on this planet long after our history on this planet is over and we are all in Heaven. Who knows what God chose to do with this planet before He made mankind or what He will do with it after our time on this planet is over. The Bible just tells about our time on this planet but the earth may tell us about other species and creatures that were here before God made Adam & Eve. And the earth may tell other species that come after us about us and our time on this planet after we have all been judged. That's how I see it.

 

[Kylie]

I believe like you do, I don't believe humans evolved from lower species. I believe Adam was the first man and that God created Adam & Eve and breathed into them just like the Bible says.

Just out of curisoity, if you believe this, how do you explain the many features of human bodies that suggest a close relation with other members of the primate family?

Science can't find a missing link between us and apes or lower species because there is no link.

Firstly, it doesn't seem like you understand evolution if you speak of missing links.

Secondly, the evolution of modern humans is fairly well documented and understood in the fossil record.

 

[stevevw]

Just out of curisoity, if you believe this, how do you explain the many features of human bodies that suggest a close relation with other members of the primate family?

It could possible be common design and not common decent. Why come up with a completely different design to something that you have already designed and works well. A lawn mower has a many similarities with a motor car but are individually designed. Why make the lawn mower work on a completely different set of mechanisms.

Secondly, the evolution of modern humans is fairly well documented and understood in the fossil record.

Not really, it is claimed but not fact. Many of the connections are disputed and argued between scientists. Because we are looking back as fossilized bones which are often fragmented and displaced it can be easy to make little adjustments and see things how you want to see them. We havnt got the fleshly creature creature in front of us. Because the creatures are fairly close in design it can be easy to make an ape more human like and a human more ape like. Especially when there is a very big variation in both species. That variation can cover similar shapes that have been proposed as new species as with the skulls at Georgia. They found 5 supposed ape man skulls that covered 5 different shapes. Those shapes covered all the shapes of several species of ape man that had already been classified as new species when it was actually just the variety of one species.

Some have also reclassified or excluded several species of dinosaurs that had been made into new species when they were actually juveniles of the same species. Thats because evolutionists are quick to name new species all the time. The more they can have the more they can fill the gaps. So it can all come down to how you see things or actually what you want to see.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As I stated before the earth could be both old and young at the same time.


You didn't really answer the question. So you really believe God is going to nuke the earth before creating the new heaven and earth?

I expect the world to end in such a manner as to be consistent with God's statement He will destroy the earth next time by fire. However, I don't pretend to have the details figured out. Will it involved nuclear reactions? Will it involve bodies colliding with our planet? I plead lack of information.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I expect the world to end in such a manner as to be consistent with God's statement He will destroy the earth next time by fire. However, I don't pretend to have the details figured out. Will it involved nuclear reactions? Will it involve bodies colliding with our planet? I plead lack of information.

Oh, don't forget the other, more specific details about the end of the world in the bible. It says a bunch of stuff will happen before the world is finally destroyed too.