What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Show me anywhere where the Bible has definitely been proved wrong. It is one thing making a statement it is quite another thing being able to support it with absolute proof.

No flood of Noah for example. And sorry, you do not understand how ideas are shown to be correct. What one bases conclusions on is evidence. Both the evidence that we have of the past and the evidence that we should see if the flood were true.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh yes. It's on channel 71 on our Sky. I've watched a few of those. Really fascinating.

But by your definition it's not science.

 

[Paul James]

There was not a flood which covered the entire terrestrial globe in the 3rd millenium BC. That was conclusively shown to be wrong two centuries since.

The evidence for it is shown in the Grand Canyon. There is no way that the Colorado River could have scoured it out the way it is. It had to be a much more powerful surge of water and mud that caused it. Also, the fossils in the rock layers show fish in the middle of eating another fish which shows that they died suddenly. They also dug out frozen Mammoths from Arctic ice and found food still in their mouths which showed they died suddenly in the middle of grazing. Also, fossilized sea life has been found near the top of Mt Everest and the Andes, which showed either the Flood got that high, or that both the Himalayas and the Andes were originally the sea bed and forced upward by a cataclysmic disruption of the earth's crust. The Bible says that it not only rained, but the fountains of the deep were forced up.

Also, this indicates that the continents of the world were originally one land mass, separated by a major disruption in the earth's crust as the result of a sudden, cataclysmic event. If it was just a local flood, the waters would have quickly drained into the Persian Gulf, but this was not the case. It took a whole year for the water to recede low enough for the ark to settle in the foothills of Ararat.

Scientists have discovered that after the eruption of Mt St Helen, the powerful mudslides from it formed canyons exactly the same in nature to the Grand Canyon, with the same type of rock layers. And that happened just around 40 years ago.
Also, the same rock layers have been found in other parts of the world with exactly the same fossil records embedded in them.

It is also interesting that if there was no world-wide cataclysmic Flood, then there should be the graves and bones of countless millions of people right back through all the rock formations. But there are none below the fossil layer, which contains fossils of exactly the same sea life and animals that we have today. Even in the place where some believe that there was just a local flood, no bones of animals or humans have been found below the thick layer of clay that was supposed to be formed by it. That's strange, because if there were civilisations with intact graves before the flood, they should have been found. But none were found, which suggests that any trace of previous civilizations was totally wiped out by a very powerful and cataclysmic event that disrupted the whole surface of the earth.

 

[Speedwell]

The evidence for it is shown in the Grand Canyon. There is no way that the Colorado River could have scoured it out the way it is. It had to be a much more powerful surge of water and mud that caused it. Also, the fossils in the rock layers show fish in the middle of eating another fish which shows that they died suddenly. They also dug out frozen Mammoths from Arctic ice and found food still in their mouths which showed they died suddenly in the middle of grazing. Also, fossilized sea life has been found near the top of Mt Everest and the Andes, which showed either the Flood got that high, or that both the Himalayas and the Andes were originally the sea bed and forced upward by a cataclysmic disruption of the earth's crust. The Bible says that it not only rained, but the fountains of the deep were forced up.

Also, this indicates that the continents of the world were originally one land mass, separated by a major disruption in the earth's crust as the result of a sudden, cataclysmic event. If it was just a local flood, the waters would have quickly drained into the Persian Gulf, but this was not the case. It took a whole year for the water to recede low enough for the ark to settle in the foothills of Ararat.

Scientists have discovered that after the eruption of Mt St Helen, the powerful mudslides from it formed canyons exactly the same in nature to the Grand Canyon, with the same type of rock layers. And that happened just around 40 years ago.
Also, the same rock layers have been found in other parts of the world with exactly the same fossil records embedded in them.

It is also interesting that if there was no world-wide cataclysmic Flood, then there should be the graves and bones of countless millions of people right back through all the rock formations. But there are none below the fossil layer, which contains fossils of exactly the same sea life and animals that we have today. Even in the place where some believe that there was just a local flood, no bones of animals or humans have been found below the thick layer of clay that was supposed to be formed by it. That's strange, because if there were civilisations with intact graves before the flood, they should have been found. But none were found, which suggests that any trace of previous civilizations was totally wiped out by a very powerful and cataclysmic event that disrupted the whole surface of the earth.

Where are you getting this stuff? None of it is even remotely true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence for it is shown in the Grand Canyon. There is no way that the Colorado River could have scoured it out the way it is. It had to be a much more powerful surge of water and mud that caused it. Also, the fossils in the rock layers show fish in the middle of eating another fish which shows that they died suddenly. They also dug out frozen Mammoths from Arctic ice and found food still in their mouths which showed they died suddenly in the middle of grazing. Also, fossilized sea life has been found near the top of Mt Everest and the Andes, which showed either the Flood got that high, or that both the Himalayas and the Andes were originally the sea bed and forced upward by a cataclysmic disruption of the earth's crust. The Bible says that it not only rained, but the fountains of the deep were forced up.

Also, this indicates that the continents of the world were originally one land mass, separated by a major disruption in the earth's crust as the result of a sudden, cataclysmic event. If it was just a local flood, the waters would have quickly drained into the Persian Gulf, but this was not the case. It took a whole year for the water to recede low enough for the ark to settle in the foothills of Ararat.

Scientists have discovered that after the eruption of Mt St Helen, the powerful mudslides from it formed canyons exactly the same in nature to the Grand Canyon, with the same type of rock layers. And that happened just around 40 years ago.
Also, the same rock layers have been found in other parts of the world with exactly the same fossil records embedded in them.

It is also interesting that if there was no world-wide cataclysmic Flood, then there should be the graves and bones of countless millions of people right back through all the rock formations. But there are none below the fossil layer, which contains fossils of exactly the same sea life and animals that we have today. Even in the place where some believe that there was just a local flood, no bones of animals or humans have been found below the thick layer of clay that was supposed to be formed by it. That's strange, because if there were civilisations with intact graves before the flood, they should have been found. But none were found, which suggests that any trace of previous civilizations was totally wiped out by a very powerful and cataclysmic event that disrupted the whole surface of the earth.

Oh my, endless PRATT's from dishonest sources. I know that you do not mean to lie, but you are copying the work of liars.

Let's go over your claims one at a time. Or you could try to explain how this formed from a flood. No hand waving. When you make an error I will explain to you why you are wrong:

That is a photo from Goosenecks State Park. The river is a tributary to the Colordao. How did that form from a flood?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What is CS? Obviously if I don't know what it is, we probably don't get it. I get sky TV. Is it a channel on it?

I think it was meant "CSI" about criminal forensics.

 

[Speedwell]

I think it was meant "CSI" about criminal forensics.

Yeah, he's seen it.

 

[Paul James]

But by your definition it's not science.

It is historical science, but not origin science. For a start, the present evidence is observable, and can be closely examined. If it is human hair, which is often the case, then it can be tested for DNA and if the offender is on the DNA register, he can be traced. If finger prints are found, they can be examined and compared with finger prints of people on record and if a match is found, the criminal can also be traced. There can be tyre tracks, foot prints, blood stains, witness sightings, and all sorts of evidence that can be examined, and tested for verification. Through the evidence at the scene, the crime can be replicated in the sense that the investigators can know what actually happened.

There are some cases that are not solved for many years, but another vital piece of evidence can be uncovered through a witness coming forward that would give the investigators a lead and finally to crack the case.

But origin science is not a true science in the same manner as historical science, because there is no observation, no examination, no test, and no replication of the evolutionary process. With forensic science, the case is reconstructed through the evidence and not evidence proving a preconceived premise. And when there have been cases where there has been a preconceived premise, and a person is convicted of a crime, it has been subsequently discovered through further evidence that the preconceived premise was wrong and a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Evolution, as well as creationism, looks at the same evidence. Creationism draws conclusions from the available evidence. Evolution fits the evidence into its own preconceived premise. That is the big difference between how the two interpret the available present evidence.

So Evolutionists come up with the theory about how the universe originated, and they fit the evidence into their theory, and either ignore or explain away any evidence that doesn't fit. Creationists view the evidence and allows the evidence itself to prove that the Bible is an accurate historical record of what actually happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I suggest to provide one single instance of evolution in the present that can be observed, examined, tested and replicated.

Aren't there already several in this thread alone? (or maybe it's one of the other ongoing and long threads in this forum.) Your ignorance of the basics of current evidence for evolution is really no excuse.

 

[Paul James]

Where are you getting this stuff? None of it is even remotely true.

It all depends on which scientists you read. Evolution scientists will read the evidence according to their own preconceived theory. And as I said, creation scientists will view the evidence and sees that the evidence itself validates creationism.

 

[Paul James]

I think it was meant "CSI" about criminal forensics.

Yep.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Creationism draws conclusions from the available evidence.

No it doesn't. It just tries to fit some bits of Genesis to superficial observations of nature.

Didn't you say it was a belief system earlier tonight? Yep: What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So Evolutionists come up with the theory about how the universe originated,

Nope. Evolutionists are biologists, not cosmologists.

 

[Paul James]

Aren't there already several in this thread alone? (or maybe it's one of the other ongoing and long threads in this forum.) Your ignorance of the basics of current evidence for evolution is really no excuse.

The available evidence from the fossil record shows that evolution ceased and is no longer happening. If the fossil record is just 6000 years old, then evolution ceased 6000 years ago. If it is, as evolutionists say, millions of years old, then it stopped millions of years ago. So the fossil record can't be used to support evolution at all, because it shows that it ceased and did not continue after the animals and sea life died and become a permanent record of what state they were in when they died.

If evolution is true, then it should have continued to develop and we should be able to observe significant changes in the sea life and animals from what they were in the fossils. But there is no evidence of any changes, so there has been no evolution for at least the last 6000 years at least, and possibly no development for millions of years. So the whole case for evolution collapses right there!

 

[Paul James]

No it doesn't. It just tries to fit some bits of Genesis to superficial observations of nature.

Didn't you say it was a belief system earlier tonight? Yep: What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

Yep. Creationism is a belief system based on the Biblical record, just the same as Evolution is a belief system based on what Darwin's Origin of the Species started.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Authentic cave drawings that are supposed to show men living million of years ago show also domestic animals exactly the same as they are today, along with humans exactly the same, so we can conclude that domestic animal and human evolution ceased millions of years ago as well.

Cave drawings are from a few 10,000s of years ago, not millions.

 

[Paul James]

Nope. Evolutionists are biologists, not cosmologists.

Bible-believing Creationists are actually historians who accept the Bible as just as valid as any other history.

 

[Paul James]

Cave drawings are from a few 10,000s of years ago, not millions.

The authentic ones depict real human beings and domestic animals unchanged to what they are today, so the fact still remains, no evolutionary changes have occurred since those cave drawings were first made.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The available evidence from the fossil record shows that evolution ceased and is no longer happening. If the fossil record is just 6000 years old, then evolution ceased 6000 years ago. If it is, as evolutionists say, millions of years old, then it stopped millions of years ago. So the fossil record can't be used to support evolution at all, because it shows that it ceased and did not continue after the animals and sea life died and become a permanent record of what state they were in when they died.

If evolution is true, then it should have continued to develop and we should be able to observe significant changes in the sea life and animals from what they were in the fossils. But there is no evidence of any changes, so there has been no evolution for at least the last 6000 years at least, and possibly no development for millions of years. So the whole case for evolution collapses right there!

6000 years is a rather short time. Egyptian civilization is barely 6000 years old. If I recall correctly, fossils are bones (generally) where the bone has been replaced by minerals. I think that generally takes quite a long time, so generally speaking, nothing about the last 6000 years is describe by the fossil record. (i.e., none of the fossils are that old) [I may have missed some edge cases. I'm not particularly well versed in paleontology.]

 

[Hans Blaster]

The authentic ones depict real human beings and domestic animals unchanged to what they are today, so the fact still remains, no evolutionary changes have occurred since those cave drawings were first made.

I thought they showed wild animals like deer and bears. Examples please.