Thread where Creationists attempt to persuade us with evidence.

[ChordatesLegacy]

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.

The blatant era that the AIG folks make is that they try to balance the amount of sediments subducted to that eroded off the land.

This is wrong.

The sediments being subducted are balanced by the introduction of igneous material into the crust.

I suppose it works for the ignorant, or those who want it to be true.

 

[Danyc]

Make sure you don't skip over my reply to your post, Robert! I wouldn't want you to miss it.

 

[RobertByers]

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.

This is off subject. I talk scienceish stuff and not biblical evidence.
I only state the evidence for Christianity is immense including in peoples lives. This is so a good point if true. Its true.

Genesis insists on a young earth especially about life and geology. Since the fall I mean Before that is possible to contend but unlikely that there was time agoing.
.
It is up to anyone to demonstrate the earth is old when there is no reason to presume it is. From the bible we know geology is not old.
Its up to the side who says its old to show good much evidence.
Any points brought up here or anywhere fail under creationist crticism.
If you were right you would have lots of evidence.
The few people in geology just have been incompetent or unimaginitive in figuring out these past and gone events.

 

[Split Rock]

It is up to anyone to demonstrate the earth is old when there is no reason to presume it is.

Deep time is not a presumption. It is a conclusion inferred from the preponderance of the physical evidence.

From the bible we know geology is not old.

Only if you interpret it wrong.

Its up to the side who says its old to show good much evidence.

And this has been done over and over here in this forum.

Any points brought up here or anywhere fail under creationist crticism.

What "creationist criticism?" "This all makes sense in a biblical framework," does not constitute criticism.

If you were right you would have lots of evidence.

And we do, as you have read many times here.

The few people in geology just have been incompetent or unimaginitive in figuring out these past and gone events.

LOL! It is the consensus of the geological community, and has been since the mid nineteenth century. Your arrogance in describing experts in their field (a field you are woefully ignorant of) as "incompetent or unimaginative" is remarkably unChristian-like. You are the one who is "unimaginative," since you read the Bible like it was a history book written by Dr. Seuss. A little hint for you... Dr. Seuss never wrote a history book.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

This is off subject. I talk scienceish stuff and not biblical evidence.
I only state the evidence for Christianity is immense including in peoples lives. This is so a good point if true. Its true.

Citation needed.

Genesis insists on a young earth especially about life and geology.

In your particular interpretation of Genesis. Do you presume to know how everyone interprets the bible?

Since the fall I mean Before that is possible to contend but unlikely that there was time agoing.

What evidence do you have of this?

It is up to anyone to demonstrate the earth is old when there is no reason to presume it is.

True. Fortunately they have. Naturally the science behind it is far too complex (and admittedly beyond my level of education on the matter), but you can find excellent resources on the subject on such sites as Google and Wikipedia. I'll even get you started.

Wikipedia article on the age of the earth

From the bible we know geology is not old.

Of course the science of geology is not very old. Only in the past several centuries has geology become a scientific field, but the origins of it go back as far as the Greeks in the 4th century BCE.

Its up to the side who says its old to show good much evidence.

Fortunately, the side that says it is old has shown both good and plentiful evidence (which is what I assume you meant by "good much"). Once again, I direct you to the Wikipedia article on the Age of the Earth.

Any points brought up here or anywhere fail under creationist crticism.

I'd have to disagree. The assertions of AIG, ICR, and other such pseudoscientific organizations have made not even a dent in scientific consensuses regarding the age of the earth.

If you were right you would have lots of evidence.

Again, we do.

The few people in geology just have been incompetent or unimaginitive in figuring out these past and gone events.

"Few"? Unless I am mistaken, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of professional geologists in the world. The vast majority agree that the world is about 4.54 billion years old.

By the way, the fact that you call these men and women, who have spent years studying and researching in obscurity to further the knowledge of humankind, incompetent and unimaginative, is frankly an insult to anyone who does science. The fact that you, who I'd wager has no scientific training whatsoever, can presume to say that the work of all these people is invalid, is dispicable.

 

[Naraoia]

This is off subject. I talk scienceish stuff and not biblical evidence.

Scienceish? Where? I've never seen you talk anything even vaguely resembling science.

I only state the evidence for Christianity is immense including in peoples lives.

No. Perhaps there's evidence that it can make people happier (is there?). But I have yet to see any evidence in people's life (or anywhere else) that it's true.

This is so a good point if true. Its true.

Then demonstrate it is.

Genesis insists on a young earth especially about life and geology.

Where does it insist on a young earth?

Since the fall I mean Before that is possible to contend but unlikely that there was time agoing.

Zero marks. Show us your reasoning.
.

It is up to anyone to demonstrate the earth is old when there is no reason to presume it is.

And precisely that's what the first geologists did when there was no reason to presume the earth was old.

From the bible we know geology is not old.

I'm curious. Care to supply a few relevant quotes?

Besides, geology is a scientific discipline. Of course it's not old - science as a whole isn't that old (though the problem solving principles it's based on probably are).

Its up to the side who says its old to show good much evidence.

You are late by about 200 years if memory serves.

Any points brought up here or anywhere fail under creationist crticism.

Then why have I seen very few of them fail, here or elsewhere?

If you were right you would have lots of evidence.

Thing is, we have. What's more, you've been shown and explained multiple pieces of it multiple times. I'm left with the conclusion that you don't understand geology, don't care or both.

The few people in geology just have been incompetent or unimaginitive in figuring out these past and gone events.

*raised eyebrows*

If I were one of the geologists here I'd be rather... upset by your allegation. Especially given that you've not provided any evidence to back it up.

(Also, I wonder just how many people you consider "few". Because the old-earther camp is basically the whole field of geology.)

 

[selfinflikted]

ed.

 

[Lazuline]

Hey, I found something, sort of.

Wild Sheep Descended From Single Pair Show Surprising Genetic Diversity

Makes it seem slightly less implausible that we're all descendants of Noah.
(Not a creationist myself, mind. Just saying.)

 

[Danyc]

This is off subject. I talk scienceish stuff and not biblical evidence.
I only state the evidence for Christianity is immense including in peoples lives. This is so a good point if true. Its true.

Genesis insists on a young earth especially about life and geology. Since the fall I mean Before that is possible to contend but unlikely that there was time agoing.
.
It is up to anyone to demonstrate the earth is old when there is no reason to presume it is. From the bible we know geology is not old.
Its up to the side who says its old to show good much evidence.
Any points brought up here or anywhere fail under creationist crticism.
If you were right you would have lots of evidence.
The few people in geology just have been incompetent or unimaginitive in figuring out these past and gone events.

Hahah hey Byers, a little birdie told me this neat little thing called reading the post you're replying to.

I suggest you do it.

 

[Molal]

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.

Danyc makes a really good and interesting point here. I have been taking some courses concerning ancient mythology - from the 4th Egyptian dynasty through to the Greek era and the rise of Christianity. Much to my chagrin (since I am a Christian) I am find many similarities between ancient religion and Christianity. Clearly, Christianity is not a copy, but the themes are common, clearly identifiable and quite obvious.

I have known this for sometime, but it is one thing to know it and it is another to actual take the time to research it.

Anyway, this is off-topic, but I wanted to share with you guys here and with Danyc.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey, I found something, sort of.

Wild Sheep Descended From Single Pair Show Surprising Genetic Diversity

Makes it seem slightly less implausible that we're all descendants of Noah.
(Not a creationist myself, mind. Just saying.)

Interesting article, but there are known cases wherein a genetic bottleneck has rendered populations vulnerable to disease and other disorders. A good example are cheetahs, which have a low genetic diversity and poor sperm vitality in males.
http://www.american.edu/ted/cheetah.htm

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

I talk scienceish stuff and not biblical evidence.

and a couple of lines later:

Genesis insists on a young earth especially about life and geology.

 

[aeroz22]

and a couple of lines later:

Thats really what it all comes down to for a YECist. The real question here is, is he/she willing to examine the tons and tons of information that disproves YECism. It requires a basic understanding of science as a foundation, and maybe thats just too much work for him/her. But I hope not. If one is willing to build that foundation, and honestly consider the evidence that is there, one will soon see the truth, as I did.

 

[Molal]

You have to remember that for creationists, if the bible says it, then that's how it is.

There is no argument that will sway them, no data that will change their minds.......nothing. They will take the bible literally and believe it.....full stop.

This is an amazingly difficult thing to comprehend because as scientists you get used to being slapped down and re-configuring your ideas due to new data - this is part of the course of science. To come across an absolute ideology is an anathema to the scientific methodology.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

You have to remember that for creationists, if the bible says it, then that's how it is.

There is no argument that will sway them, no data that will change their minds.......nothing. They will take the bible literally and believe it.....full stop.

That's right, consol!

No, seriously, I think that's generally true, but not always. At the risk of committing a No True Creationist fallacy... there are some creationists who are like this (the "True" ones, I guess) and there are others who have simply been ... well ... lied to (there may be a nice way to say this, but I can't be bothered being diplomatic right now). And often they will propagate the lies unwittingly; you see this a lot here with the PRATT posters. This latter group can be swayed by evidence because they just don't realize it exists. Yes, it's a battle, but it can be won.

This is an amazingly difficult thing to comprehend because as scientists you get used to being slapped down and re-configuring your ideas due to new data - this is part of the course of science. To come across an absolute ideology is an anathema to the scientific methodology.

I think that's a good point. When I was trained to be a creationist, I did also get some amount of education in science and logic and such like. It was a fatal error on the creationists' part, since the dissonance was irreconcilable to me. Bottom line: this is why science (& math!) education is so important.

 

[Gracchus]

Hey, I found something, sort of.

Wild Sheep Descended From Single Pair Show Surprising Genetic Diversity

Makes it seem slightly less implausible that we're all descendants of Noah.
(Not a creationist myself, mind. Just saying.)

From the article: "The researchers attribute this increase in genetic variety to natural selection, as the timeframe was too short for this diversity to be attributable to genetic mutation, and the Islands are much too isolated to have undergone migrations. 'This variety can be explained by elimination, over the generations, of individuals with low genetic diversity. In small isolated populations, related individuals are likely to reproduce amongst themselves, resulting in inbreeding and homozygotes.

The genetic variety of the population becomes impoverished and its evolutionary potential decreases. Furthermore, consanguinity is known to produce genetic diseases. The most heterozygous individuals are better able to resist these diseases,' explains Renaud Kaeuffer. The researchers stress the point that the genetic variety of the mouflons on the Kerguelen Islands is still less than what could be observed in a larger population."

In short, it is theorized that species that have experienced genetic bottlenecks will undergo selection that increases genetic diversity. Kind of counter-intuitive perhaps, but when you think about it a bit, it makes sense.

Still, some species show no evidence of recent bottle-necking. As I recall, although I could be wrong, the most recent near extinction event for the human species, reducing it perhaps to less than ten-thousand people (not eight persons), seems to have occurred about sixty (not six) thousand years ago.

Lazuline, you may not be a creationist, but you read and comprehend like one. Just saying.

 

[Vene]

I'm still waiting for some evidence.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I'm still waiting for some evidence.

We all are, I think.

 

[Danyc]

I'm still waiting for some evidence.

...Waiting....

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

...Waiting....

We could probably wait here til the sun expands to the point that the earth becomes inhospitable to life, and still not get any evidence from the YECs.