Thread where Creationists attempt to persuade us with evidence.

[AV1611VET]

I want creationists to give honest attempts at showing their scientific reasoning behind why they believe the earth is young.

I thought you wanted evidence?

This is the thread where Creationists can attempt to present their evidence for a young earth.

If all you want is scientific reasoning - I'll do better than that - I'll name the specific process:

• creatio ex nihilo

 

[AV1611VET]

But, AV, don't you consider the Bible "evidence" for Creationism?

Indeed I do; but I'm willing to suspend that line of reasoning right now.

You can hardly tell us that there is no evidence if you yourself take the Bible as evidence.

I don't want to derail this thread into the area of textual criticism.

Face it the way this debate will go is that you will demand your evidence be accepted...

For the umpteenth time, my Apple Challenge is all about discussing your evidence - not mine. It specifically asks you to produce the evidence - not me - (I produced the apple, remember?).

What you, AV, seem to want is to eliminate the physical evidence...

What evidence, Thaumaturgy? You, or anyone else, have ever produced any worth discussing. MrGoodBytes suggested a videotape of me doing it again, which I showed to be not good enough, even if the original act had been videotaped.

 

[MoonLancer]

I thought you wanted evidence?If all you want is scientific reasoning - I'll do better than that - I'll name the specific process:

• creatio ex nihilo

Could you be more specific? I don't agree with you that creatio exnihilo is possible. Could you explain the specifics of what it entails and all the intreaging details thats involved with it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hate to tell you this but this is the best conversation you're going to get in this thread.

What conversation? You mean unwarranted accusations against me?

You don't seriously think you're going to get an answer from them, do you?

I do --- none --- that's an acceptable answer - (or should be).

 

[AV1611VET]

If anything, I can quote this thread at the creationists who say there are mounds of evidence for a young earth. They had their chance, they failed.

You're doing exactly what I suggested about a year ago. I couldn't understand why people weren't presenting my Apple Challenge to those who claimed they had evidence. Instead, they would come to me and ask me to present it to them - and I won't do that. As I told Split_Rock (I think it was) - I don't have a copyright on my Apple Challenge. Feel free to use it at your discretion.

This thread of yours is only about a year behind mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you be more specific? I don't agree with you that creatio exnihilo is possible. Could you explain the specifics of what it entails and all the intreaging details thats involved with it?

QV please.

 

[AV1611VET]

For the sake of this thread, I'm going to bug out. I feel that I've hijacked it, and I am very curious myself as to what people will present as evidence (and have been since last August). So I'm going to Read Only mode.

/thread

 

[Bombila]

Danyc, you might have better luck in the Origins Theolgy section of General Theology. Creationists who do think they have science to back them up post there. AV is about the last lone surviving YEC creationist in this forum area (whatever else, AV certainly has staying powah!).

Although AFAICS the debate over in OT gets just as heated as it can here, they have the impression (frequently alluded to) that evolutionists in this forum are over-the-top unpleasant and prone to mostly jeering at them.

I don't participate there, but I do read, and some of the debates are quite interesting wrt the outlandishness of creationist 'science'.

 

[Logic_Fault]

If you think I'm wrong LF, then let's see the evidence --- it's as simple as that. Unless, of course, you agree with me that there is none?

I do agree there is none which is why, unlike you, I don't believe it. Why you believe it is beyond my comprehension and, to be honest, more than a little bizarre.

 

[Logic_Fault]

My Apple Challenge shows that no one --- not one person --- can produce evidence - (even hypothetically) - that they would deem acceptable enough to convince a friend that it happened. Even you can't.

It's been a while since I looked at the thread and, I'll admit, I only read a handful of pages before I couldn't take the inanity any more but what I saw was a lot of people coming up with some quite clever ways of giving you evidence. Granted, most were hypothetical such as measuring the amount of matter/energy before and after your little magic trick and comparing the two but most of what I saw should have sufficed. Instead you dragged the thread on and on and on continually claiming nobody had answered your question, just like you always do, because apparently you have one single answer you'll accept as "correct" and thus ignore everything else that anyone says.

 

[Logic_Fault]

What conversation? You mean unwarranted accusations against me?

If that's what you want to call it. I really meant just the irrelevant, off-topic stuff that was going back and forth.

I do --- none --- that's an acceptable answer - (or should be).

It is an acceptable answer when asked for evidence of something if, in fact, you actually have no evidence to provide. However, since your side (creationists) has no evidence they should stop claiming they do.

 

[Danyc]

Just checking back in...will I be disappointed again...?

...

4 pages and still not even a single attempt to produce the evidence that they claim they have mounds of.

I'll keep waiting. Perhaps Juvenissun or Bobert Byers will come along and try.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Just checking back in...will I be disappointed again...?

...

4 pages and still not even a single attempt to produce the evidence that they claim they have mounds of.

I'll keep waiting. Perhaps Juvenissun or Bobert Byers will come along and try.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

 

[RobertByers]

The evidence for the earth is from the revealed word of God. Accepted in the English world, therefore the top of mankind, since the reformation. Its credibility is on itself and all the evidences of God,Christ, Holy spirit working in peoples lives and communities. Creationism is a takeoff on great evidence backing up the truth of the bible.

Therefore we simply take on any opposition that gets too aggresive that contends with the bible.
In minor off broadway pursuits called historical sciences there is an attempt to say earth evidence proves the bible wrong on genesis.
Our evidence for a young earth is a witness to the events. Deny the witness is legit but itys a witness until proven false.
Then we look at earth and do not see the ages/stories based in good evidence that contend with scripture.

Its not for us to prove the earth is young. The bible says. There is no reason to see it old. The evidence to say its old is not well done.

The earth looks as it would look including some great events to beat it up.

Its is up to geology to demonstrate to a neutral audience, or opposing one, why in the world they think it is old. How hard can this be?

 

[Split Rock]

The evidence for the earth is from the revealed word of God. Accepted in the English world, therefore the top of mankind, since the reformation.

Really? The "English world" is the top of mankind?? Says who?

Its credibility is on itself and all the evidences of God,Christ, Holy spirit working in peoples lives and communities. Creationism is a takeoff on great evidence backing up the truth of
the bible.

If there is truth in the Bible, it is theological, not scientific.

Therefore we simply take on any opposition that gets too aggresive that contends with the bible.

Quite correct... and do so blindly as well.

In minor off broadway pursuits called historical sciences there is an attempt to say earth evidence proves the bible wrong on genesis.

"Off Broadway?" Do you mean like creationism is an "off Broadway" form of Christianity?

Our evidence for a young earth is a witness to the events. Deny the witness is legit but itys a witness until proven false.

And it has been proven false. Done.

Then we look at earth and do not see the ages/stories based in good evidence that contend with scripture.

Wrong. It looks old and worn down in many locations.

Its not for us to prove the earth is young. The bible says. There is no reason to see it old. The evidence to say its old is not well done.

Not "well done?" How about medium rare?

The earth looks as it would look including some great events to beat it up.

Not "beaten up," but worn by time.

Its is up to geology to demonstrate to a neutral audience, or opposing one, why in the world they think it is old. How hard can this be?

Not really hard at all. Nineteenth century geologists were able to do so with little in the way of modern tools. All "neutral" audiences have been convinced... only fanatics like yourself are not.

 

[MoonLancer]

QV please.

"What" is a very poor substitute for "How", wouldn't you agree?

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Let me play devils advocate here and start the creationists off.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.


LINK

 

[Danyc]

The evidence for the earth is from the revealed word of God. Accepted in the English world, therefore the top of mankind, since the reformation. Its credibility is on itself and all the evidences of God,Christ, Holy spirit working in peoples lives and communities. Creationism is a takeoff on great evidence backing up the truth of the bible.

Therefore we simply take on any opposition that gets too aggresive that contends with the bible.
In minor off broadway pursuits called historical sciences there is an attempt to say earth evidence proves the bible wrong on genesis.
Our evidence for a young earth is a witness to the events. Deny the witness is legit but itys a witness until proven false.
Then we look at earth and do not see the ages/stories based in good evidence that contend with scripture.

Its not for us to prove the earth is young. The bible says. There is no reason to see it old. The evidence to say its old is not well done.

The earth looks as it would look including some great events to beat it up.

Its is up to geology to demonstrate to a neutral audience, or opposing one, why in the world they think it is old. How hard can this be?

Good, good! Someone finally shows up to participate.

Ok, from what I understand, your argument is that God and the Bible are evidenced from their work in people's lives and communities.

I'm sorry, Byers, but that's much too vague. You need to give us specific examples of God intervening in somebody's life. Because, guess what? All throughout history, people have claimed their fortunes and misfortunes to be the work of Gods.

Look at the Greeks. They owed everything that happened to them or to others to the Gods, Apollo, Zeus, Hades. WE know they don't exist. But in our "above such rubbish" modern society, people still attribute their fortune and misfortune to God. When in fact, their is no way to tell that it was not simply the normal happenings of everyday life.

The point is that 'God's work in people's lives' can be attributed to any God that has ever been conceived. In the end it still comes down to faith. God never just poofs into a hospital room full of praying family members and goes "I have heard your prayers, and this man will live for your great faith." No. That doesn't happen. And because that doesn't happen, you must accept on faith that the man lived because God willed it so.

And yes Christianity has brought together communities. So has every other religion in history. No deal.


"In minor off broadway pursuits called historical sciences there is an attempt to say earth evidence proves the bible wrong on genesis."

In the historical sciences (I'm guessing you mean geology and the like) the evidence does not say the Bible is wrong on Genesis. Now listen very carefully, because this is an extremely important point for a christian to understand:

Evidence proves wrong not the Bible, but a specific interpretation of the Bible.

Try to understand this. Many, many, many CHRISTIANS accept evolution. Many, many many CHRISTIANS accept the fact that the earth is billions of years old. And it does no damage to their faith, because they understand that there are different interpretations of Genesis.




Summing up your post, what you believe is you do not have to prove the earth is young, because you're specific interpretation of Genesis says that it is young.

In conclusion (lol) this stance in fallacious because:

1.) That is not the only interpretation of Genesis
2.) This requires you to give evidence that the Bible is correct anyways. And no, 'God's work in people's lives and communities' doesn't make the cut. The Greeks can't use that argument and neither can you.

 

[RobertByers]

Let me play devils advocate here and start the creationists off.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic subduction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.


LINK

Whats the question?

The ocean were creaed or deepened by the flood year. Save in some spots most of the accumulation in the oceans would come since the flood.
I don't know how much of the sediment in the oceans is from the flood or later. There would be great accumulation events after the flood by the way.

 

[Naraoia]

Whats the question?

The ocean were creaed or deepened by the flood year. Save in some spots most of the accumulation in the oceans would come since the flood.
I don't know how much of the sediment in the oceans is from the flood or later. There would be great accumulation events after the flood by the way.

You do realise that ChordatesLegacy was trying to play devil's (or rather YEC's) advocate? (After all, he only wrote it in this big letters). There was no question I noticed

Or were you trying to add your own evidence? If that was your intention then you've failed miserably, seeing as there's not a single piece of data in your post.