why wait?

[USincognito]

God is no liar.

And neither would his Creation be.

Truth is crucial to Him. His revelation doesn't lie about the flood just because some men have come up with a very reasonable sounding fairy tale that explains everything without Him. He made the earth, He caused a global flood which left evidence all over the earth. Deposits, miles thick, layered, varied, consistent with a flood.

How come you never stick out threads discussing the evidences though? You just keep asserting over and over that the evidence is for Young Earth and Noah's Flood, provide a link or two to AiG and then sorta let the threads fall into disuse when presented with countering facts.

I think it's you who realizes your Young Earth and Flood are fairy tales and it scares you to have to deal with the realities of the geological record.

 

[philadiddle]

He made the earth, He caused a global flood which left evidence all over the earth. Deposits, miles thick, layered, varied, consistent with a flood.

How are sedimentary rocks evidence of a rapid deposit?

 

[Epiphoskei]

\So God wouldn't have made the universe to look as old as it is. Since the universe looks old, then that settles it, cause God wouldn't put a new universe in an old looking universe skin.

So you have seen another universe which you know to be old such that you are qualified to make objective decisions of what "old" looks like?

Every time a person says it "looks old" he's stating a baseless opinion. We have only one universe. The universe doesn't look old or young, it looks like the universe. We don't have a point of comparison. If the universe were only thousands of years old, the universe would in fact look young.

 

[Galle]

He made the earth, He caused a global flood which left evidence all over the earth. Deposits, miles thick, layered, varied, consistent with a flood.

So, have creationists ever managed to explain angular uncomformities? Or varves, for that matter? Or radio-isotope dating? Because I've never even seen them try, and I've been asking for a decade. The closest any of them has come is to attempt to discredit the evidence with a variety of fallacious and ultimately dishonest arguments (e.g., "geological dating is circular", RATE, etc.).

 

[philadiddle]

So you have seen another universe which you know to be old such that you are qualified to make objective decisions of what "old" looks like?

Every time a person says it "looks old" he's stating a baseless opinion. We have only one universe. The universe doesn't look old or young, it looks like the universe. We don't have a point of comparison. If the universe were only thousands of years old, the universe would in fact look young.

It's not that ppl looked at it and said, "That's old." It's that studying the things we see necessitate age. Like the stuff mentioned in this article.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

The red shift is a great example, as light moves away the red spectrum shifts. We observe the shift being relative to the distance of the star. I appears that the light is old, and the only other explanation is that God made it look old (a deception). But as archaeologist said, God doesn't put new wine into old wine skin.

More on the red shift here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

[laptoppop]

So, have creationists ever managed to explain angular uncomformities? Or varves, for that matter? Or radio-isotope dating? Because I've never even seen them try, and I've been asking for a decade. The closest any of them has come is to attempt to discredit the evidence with a variety of fallacious and ultimately dishonest arguments (e.g., "geological dating is circular", RATE, etc.).

We've discussed all of these before. Please search the forum. Short answer: yes, yes, and yes.

 

[laptoppop]

How are sedimentary rocks evidence of a rapid deposit?

The very existence of sedimentary rocks and fossils speaks to abnormal circumstances. Animals don't typically fossilze, they rot and decay. Even buried, they rot. They must be buried under unusual circumstances to fossilize. The extent and thickness of the deposits speak to the violence and scope of the flooding -- in this case global. Oh, and that just happens to agree with the explicit revelation of a loving God!

 

[Galle]

We've discussed all of these before. Please search the forum. Short answer: yes, yes, and yes.

Amazing that you can't bother to link to these prior discussions. I can't help but think that, no, you never have addressed these issues in a substantial manner. If I didn't know how sensitive creationists were to the truth, I'd make a few comments about honesty and integrity at this time.

 

[laptoppop]

And neither would his Creation be.



How come you never stick out threads discussing the evidences though? You just keep asserting over and over that the evidence is for Young Earth and Noah's Flood, provide a link or two to AiG and then sorta let the threads fall into disuse when presented with countering facts.

I think it's you who realizes your Young Earth and Flood are fairy tales and it scares you to have to deal with the realities of the geological record.

On the contrary -- once I've stated my position, and someone comes along with things they think counter it -- if I don't feel they've made a case, I see no reason to just repeat myself. I will let the evidence (and my posts) stand for itself.

 

[Galle]

On the contrary -- once I've stated my position, and someone comes along with things they think counter it -- if I don't feel they've made a case, I see no reason to just repeat myself. I will let the evidence (and my posts) stand for itself.

In other words, instead of supporting your claims, you post a few links to AiG, ignore all criticism and allow the thread to fall into disuse. Later, when you make your unsupported claims yet again and people ask for evidence, you say "we've already discussed that" and run away.

 

[philadiddle]

The very existence of sedimentary rocks and fossils speaks to abnormal circumstances.

We see sedimentary minerals that will become rock being deposited by rivers and other slow processes. The existence of sedimentary rocks does not speak of abnormal circumstances. Neither do fossils (more below).

Animals don't typically fossilze, they rot and decay. Even buried, they rot. They must be buried under unusual circumstances to fossilize.

If the earth is billions of years old then an uncountable amount of organisms would have existed. To find thousands of fossils is a drop in the bucket, and shows just how rare it is for something to fossilize. It's also interesting that fossilization favors aquatic animals, which we seem to have way more fossils of. If everything was underwater in a flood, you'd think that there would be a higher land animal to sea creature fossil ratio.

The extent and thickness of the deposits speak to the violence and scope of the flooding -- in this case global. Oh, and that just happens to agree with the explicit revelation of a loving God!

The order of minerals could not have been sorted by water based on weight, size, mass or anything else. Different layers would have to be layed down at different times. The fossils couldn't have been sorted in a nested hierarchy by a flood. There couldn't be wind erosion in desert sedimentations, there would be signs of water erosion if there was a flood that deposited them. Varves, salt deposits and other formations couldn't have formed in a flood scenario. It goes on and on.

 

[archaeologist]

And neither would his Creation be

you are assuming and expecting an ideal world, forgetting that sin and corruption takes it toll on things.

We didn't know about many things till recently, doesn't make them false

i also know that such thinking was evident in 6th b.c. china but then many theories were evident as well. if they were true, we would have known about them from the beginning not later in history.

It's not about feeling superior. 1 edition of the New York Times has more information then ppl at that time would have come across in their whole lifetime

but you are forgetting that ancient man has built structures which modern man cannot do nor understand how they did it. i do not think you have an argument here.

Yes you do, the process of DNA forming a double helix

no i don't. i can easily say, the egg and the sperm join together and form a human. same result easier understanding.

Saying "God did it" over and over again doesn't get us anywhere.

eventually, using natural means that is where one returns each time.

And crime scene investigators can't see the crimes they are investigating, but there is evidence they can examine to find out what happened.

BUT--- a. we know the crime happened...there is a dead body, money or items are missing, ...so there is solid evidence that something took place.
b. the police can ctach the criminal and eywitnessses identify the person
c. the criminal confesses

all 3 are absent from evolution. there is no evidence that species split from a common ancestor, scientists cannot capture or identify that common ancestor, and it doesn't jump up and down saying 'here i am'

Through the process of evolution

through the process of evolution = God did it

the evidence of God's creation explains how these things came into existence.

the result does not explain the method, given the influence of the supernatural. you are assuming God did it all naturally and that is not what is said in scripture.

God spoke and it was---is not the natural method. science is wrong when it comes to theological/spiritual/supernatural events

course, the evidence of God's creation explains how these things came into existence. You are like a kid at a magic show who insists the magician is doing real tricks. Even after the trick is explained you still think it's magic and you deny the explanation

magic is an illusion and not a good example to use, secular science's explanations do not come from God thus it is not an explanation of how things took place, though i would turn that whole bit back on those who accept evolution.

Genesis 1 says--God spoke and it appeared and evolutionists are going; no it didn't, no it didn't.

big bang-the expansion of space and matter from a small point to eventually form the universe as we know it.

yes and people get their wires crossed or they have not let God speak to them and so on. don't asume that because someone says they are a christian, that they are.

I'm beginning to strongly believe that you are someone playing a prank on this board

you think i would take all this abuse for a prank??? you're nuts.

So God wouldn't have made the universe to look as old as it is

age is secular man's determination and interpretation which has been accepted by too many people. the evidence also says it is not that old.

If you look different then your parents that is an example of micro evolution.

that is what you attribute it to but not what it is.

 

[USincognito]

They must be buried under unusual circumstances to fossilize.

Could you expound on those circumstances and why they only occur in a global flood?

 

[USincognito]

you are assuming and expecting an ideal world, forgetting that sin and corruption takes it toll on things.

Explain how sin and corruption would make the world look old even though it is not.

age is secular man's determination and interpretation which has been accepted by too many people. the evidence also says it is not that old.

You must not know who the first ones to determine scientifically the Earth being old are.

 

[theFijian]

wrong again. i have made numerous requests for scripture to be posted that shows evolution is the method God used..so far zilch.

Haha , I know you wish that Gen 1:24 didn't talk about the earth bringing forth creatures, but I'm afriad you can't change what scripture says.

 

[archaeologist]

I know you wish that Gen 1:24 didn't talk about the earth bringing forth creatures, but I'm afriad you can't change what scripture says

again you misrepresent that scripture verse, it is not refering to evolution. you are out of luck again

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

again you misrepresent that scripture verse, it is not refering to evolution. you are out of luck again

Yes, you have said that before Archie.

Now, is it anywhere written that there is no such thing as evolution?

 

[theFijian]

again you misrepresent that scripture verse, it is not refering to evolution. you are out of luck again

And again you fail to tell us Gen 1:24 means by 'the earth brought forth'. Simply repeating that it does not refer to evolution doesn't prove anything, except your paucity of answers. Admit it archie, you have no answers, this has been shown time and time again. The only thing going for you is your beligerance

 

[Yekcidmij]

this is another subject that has come up from time to time and probably needs to be addressed:

it has been said by those who accept evolution that the 'truth' has suddenly appeared 150 years ago.

if this was so, why did God wait 8-10,000 years to disclose this 'truth'?

1)This pre-supposes evolutionists believe in God at all.

2)It could also be said, however, that the Jews didn't understand the concept of Jesus for several thousand years either. So in much the same way, it is possible there are things we have not discovered until recently. God didn't reveal how gravity worked until it was discovered by Newton.

why would He use unbelieving men to contradict His holy and infallible word?

Why would God contradict Himself at all?

why would God say, 'the just shall live by faith' when He could have said, go to your science teachers and learn from them all that I have done?

This doesn't give lisence to go believe in anything. God told me Ronald McDonald and the Grimace live on Mars. Just have faith!

If God authored this whole deal we call the universe then there is nothing wrong with trying to discover things about it. I can't stand it when Christians pull out this verse and take it completely out of context.

why does God say do not follow the world and its thinking then turn around and use unbelieving men to originate and promote an idea about the originof life and th euniverse? that is hypocritical and sin?

He doesn't want you to follow the immoral ways of people. You can see in other verses that you aren't to be a drunkard or commit adultery. Many people don't see a problem with that stuff, but if you believe in the bible, then He tells you not to 'live like the world'.

If there are facts that have been discovered, like physcial laws etc... then I have yet to find a verse where God says something like "Just ignore it, it's all false."

"and in every sort of evil that decieves those who are perishing. they perish because they refuse to believe the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"

Again taking verses out of context. This verse specifically relates to the endtimes and not science in general. The "truth" in this verse is also refering to belief in Christ and not anything to do with science.

 

[crawfish]

let's add in the word 'credible'. the above answers certainly do not follow the guidelines given in the original post and are ignored.

Why don't you just go ahead and answer your own post, archie? You seem to be the only one whose answers you will accept.

We'll just sit back and watch. Or not.