[_ Old Earth _] Questions for Creationists

[Heather S]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

 

[LaudGod]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

You have to have faith for WHATEVER you believe in. Since I can't prove creationism, and you can't prove evolution, I don't see where this argument can go.

 

[maranatha_man]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

Whoa!!

"Besides the Bible"???

There is no "besides the Bible" !!!

BIBLIOLATRY is the cornerstone, and foundation of young earth creationism!!

 

[reznwerks]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

You have to have faith for WHATEVER you believe in. Since I can't prove creationism, and you can't prove evolution, I don't see where this argument can go.

Sorry but evolution is not based on faith. Thats the single most important fact you overlooked. Evolution is based on evidence and correllation. Every test we use all come to the same conclusion.

 

[reznwerks]

[quote="Heather S":2008b]Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

Whoa!!

"Besides the Bible"???

There is no "besides the Bible" !!!
Maybe for you. However there is a whole bunch of evidence at your local library that you have either ignored or haven't been told about. It's one thing to believe something because its possible it's quite another to believe something because its not and has never been shown to be possible.

BIBLIOLATRY is the cornerstone, and foundation of young earth creationism!![/quote:2008b]

 

[LaudGod]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

You have to have faith for WHATEVER you believe in. Since I can't prove creationism, and you can't prove evolution, I don't see where this argument can go.

Sorry but evolution is not based on faith. Thats the single most important fact you overlooked. Evolution is based on evidence and correllation. Every test we use all come to the same conclusion.

I'm sorry my friend, but if you had fact, we would not have an argument.
Here's a good quote from our buddy Charles Darwin:

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

 

[reznwerks]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

You have to have faith for WHATEVER you believe in. Since I can't prove creationism, and you can't prove evolution, I don't see where this argument can go.

Sorry but evolution is not based on faith. Thats the single most important fact you overlooked. Evolution is based on evidence and correllation. Every test we use all come to the same conclusion.

I'm sorry my friend, but if you had fact, we would not have an argument.
Here's a good quote from our buddy Charles Darwin:

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
You are entitled to your opinion but not having another answer for complexity and ignoring the evidence of evolution is not an intelligent answer.

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.
However the bible declares those statements to be true.

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
You are still argueing based on opinion and without evidence.In science some answers are still unknown. Its OK. We don't have to have all the answers and we may never know some. It doesn't mean God did it.

How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
I'll be expecting some evidence if you want to debate the issue. As I said ignoring the evidence and then claiming AWE at what you see is not evidence of the supernatural.Some things just are, accept it.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Hi all, I'm new here. I had no idea (until recently) that there were still so many people that were YECs, or that were still trying to disprove evolution.

To all YECs out there - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that the earth was created approximately 6,000 years ago?

To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?


Heather

You have to have faith for WHATEVER you believe in. Since I can't prove creationism, and you can't prove evolution, I don't see where this argument can go.

Sorry but evolution is not based on faith. Thats the single most important fact you overlooked. Evolution is based on evidence and correllation. Every test we use all come to the same conclusion.

Please, take your mountains of evidence to http://www.drdino.com and claim your $250,000 and then lend me twenty please.

 

[LaudGod]

In science some answers are still unknown. Its OK. We don't have to have all the answers and we may never know some. It doesn't mean God did it.

Thank you. So obviously you can't prove your belief because you don't know everything. So what does that mean?
Means you have FAITH that what you think is true.

 

[Barbarian]

Nope. I just means we don't know everything. Remember, science works on evidence.

So we know the things for which we have sufficient evidence. The rest remains to be determined.

Religion depends on faith. That's not a bad thing either; it's just that science can't work on faith. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

Don't demean faith. It's a very good way of knowing some things.

It's just that science isn't one of them.

 

[peace4all]

actually, evolution and science, can disprove creationism, but not prove what is right.


Its like this.

say there is a mystery fruit, and we say that it is a cherry, and you say that it is a pineapple.


YOu say its a pineapple, because you read a book about fruits in boxes, written by unconfrimed authors, thousands of years ago, retranslated and reconfused and ever changing/contradicting/parts ommitted.

we say, that it is NOT a pineapple, because it has smooth skin, and a sort of, butt-crack feature too it, and a stem. All that can be proven.

However, it could still be a plum, or a deformed apple. But it cant possibly be a pineapple.


btw, to prove evolution is right, to ken hovind (the guy that likes to cheat the IRS) you first have to say that evolution, as accepted by scientists, is wrong, and try to prove his theory of evolution, which has been confirmed as untrue.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

actually, evolution and science, can disprove creationism, but not prove what is right.


Its like this.

say there is a mystery fruit, and we say that it is a cherry, and you say that it is a pineapple.


YOu say its a pineapple, because you read a book about fruits in boxes, written by unconfrimed authors, thousands of years ago, retranslated and reconfused and ever changing/contradicting/parts ommitted.

we say, that it is NOT a pineapple, because it has smooth skin, and a sort of, butt-crack feature too it, and a stem. All that can be proven.

However, it could still be a plum, or a deformed apple. But it cant possibly be a pineapple.


btw, to prove evolution is right, to ken hovind (the guy that likes to cheat the IRS) you first have to say that evolution, as accepted by scientists, is wrong, and try to prove his theory of evolution, which has been confirmed as untrue.

What a convenient way of stating you cannnot back up the first sentence in the above quoted post. Yes, convenient indeed.

 

[peace4all]

Lyric...

do you have a map??


because I am pretty lost right now..

 

[Collier]

Well if you want proof other that the Bible, how about scientist themselves.Let's consider a few facts scientist have discovered.1. According to scientific discoveries, the Mississippi River deposits silt at a known rate. At the river's present size (scientist acknowledge it was larger in the past) only 5,000 years would be necessary to build up the river delta! What happened to the silt during the billions of years of an evolutionists calendar?2. Scientist have also discovered that the sun burns up at a rate of about 5 feet per hour. Now the sun is so huge that it is not noticeable to the naked eye but scientist know that it is burning up. However, at the rate scientist have given, the sun would have been DOUBLE it size only 100,000 years ago! Anything trying to live on the earth would have been burned up. Consider this as well, 20 million years ago the sun would have been touching the earth! :o What about 200 million years ago at the time of dinosaurs according to scientist?3. Scientist also tell us that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year. Doesn't sound like much right? However, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! and what about 5 billion years ago? Well, according to evolutionist, the moon should have long been out of view of the earth!4. Both the earth and moon collect cosmic dust. Erosion on earth has caused very little of the dust to remain on the earth's surface. The moon has no erosion. Evolutionist and NASA experts expected to find that the moon's dust would be over 50 feet deep. Man were they shocked to find that in its deepest part it was only 3 inches deep! :o There are other things one could look at and see the folly of evolution. Using their own facts, any person can see that the earth simply cannot be the age evolutionist need it to be. All of these scientific facts (silt deposits, rate the sun is burning up, rate the moon is moving away from the earth and the amount of cosmic dust on the moon) simply do not agree with evolutionist. However, go back to only 6,000 years ago (Bible age) and you have harmony with what these facts tell us.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Well if you want proof other that the Bible, how about scientist themselves.Let's consider a few facts scientist have discovered.1. According to scientific discoveries, the Mississippi River deposits silt at a known rate. At the river's present size (scientist acknowledge it was larger in the past) only 5,000 years would be necessary to build up the river delta! What happened to the silt during the billions of years of an evolutionists calendar?2. Scientist have also discovered that the sun burns up at a rate of about 5 feet per hour. Now the sun is so huge that it is not noticeable to the naked eye but scientist know that it is burning up. However, at the rate scientist have given, the sun would have been DOUBLE it size only 100,000 years ago! Anything trying to live on the earth would have been burned up. Consider this as well, 20 million years ago the sun would have been touching the earth! :o What about 200 million years ago at the time of dinosaurs according to scientist?3. Scientist also tell us that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year. Doesn't sound like much right? However, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! and what about 5 billion years ago? Well, according to evolutionist, the moon should have long been out of view of the earth!4. Both the earth and moon collect cosmic dust. Erosion on earth has caused very little of the dust to remain on the earth's surface. The moon has no erosion. Evolutionist and NASA experts expected to find that the moon's dust would be over 50 feet deep. Man were they shocked to find that in its deepest part it was only 3 inches deep! :o There are other things one could look at and see the folly of evolution. Using their own facts, any person can see that the earth simply cannot be the age evolutionist need it to be. All of these scientific facts (silt deposits, rate the sun is burning up, rate the moon is moving away from the earth and the amount of cosmic dust on the moon) simply do not agree with evolutionist. However, go back to only 6,000 years ago (Bible age) and you have harmony with what these facts tell us.

Collier...

I suggest you go to the website http://www.answersingenesis.org. This is a YEC site.

Look up the article "Arguments Creationists Should Not use".

Some of the arguments you made, they, as creationists, think are bad ones. Including the Darwin eye complexity quote farther above.

TM

 

[cubedbee]

Well if you want proof other that the Bible, how about scientist themselves.Let's consider a few facts scientist have discovered.1. According to scientific discoveries, the Mississippi River deposits silt at a known rate. At the river's present size (scientist acknowledge it was larger in the past) only 5,000 years would be necessary to build up the river delta! What happened to the silt during the billions of years of an evolutionists calendar?2. Scientist have also discovered that the sun burns up at a rate of about 5 feet per hour. Now the sun is so huge that it is not noticeable to the naked eye but scientist know that it is burning up. However, at the rate scientist have given, the sun would have been DOUBLE it size only 100,000 years ago! Anything trying to live on the earth would have been burned up. Consider this as well, 20 million years ago the sun would have been touching the earth! :o What about 200 million years ago at the time of dinosaurs according to scientist?3. Scientist also tell us that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year. Doesn't sound like much right? However, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth! and what about 5 billion years ago? Well, according to evolutionist, the moon should have long been out of view of the earth!4. Both the earth and moon collect cosmic dust. Erosion on earth has caused very little of the dust to remain on the earth's surface. The moon has no erosion. Evolutionist and NASA experts expected to find that the moon's dust would be over 50 feet deep. Man were they shocked to find that in its deepest part it was only 3 inches deep! :o There are other things one could look at and see the folly of evolution. Using their own facts, any person can see that the earth simply cannot be the age evolutionist need it to be. All of these scientific facts (silt deposits, rate the sun is burning up, rate the moon is moving away from the earth and the amount of cosmic dust on the moon) simply do not agree with evolutionist. However, go back to only 6,000 years ago (Bible age) and you have harmony with what these facts tell us.

These are all facetious arguments based on questionable or non-existant data and a profound misunderstanding of basic science which no real scientist accepts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

 

[Quath]

Well if you want proof other that the Bible, how about scientist themselves

One big problem also is the idea of a linear response. A child grows 5 feet from birth until age 11. So by age 22, I expect the child to be another 5 feet taller. Yet, we know that is not the case.


This applies to deposition of material from rivers, oceans and growth of stuff. Most of thetime the response is nonlinear. Also many times big changes happen like ice ages and periodic activity.

Quath

 

[Barbarian]

1. According to scientific discoveries, the Mississippi River deposits silt at a known rate. At the river's present size (scientist acknowledge it was larger in the past) only 5,000 years would be necessary to build up the river delta! What happened to the silt during the billions of years of an evolutionists calendar?

The Mississippi hasn't been around since the Earth formed. The present river dates from the end of the last ice age.

"Young-earth "proof" #19: The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.
19. Since when does the age of the earth have anything to do with the Mississippi delta? If the Mississippi delta is, in fact, 30,000 years old, what of it?

Because of oil exploration, geologists know that the sediment in regions around the Mississippi River delta is 7 miles thick! (Hayward, 1985, p.83). Did you ever wonder how Noah's flood, which was quite shallow according to Dr. Hovind, perhaps less than a quarter of a mile deep, managed to stack up 7 miles of sediment?

It is stretching the long arm of coincidence much too far, to suggest that there just happened to be a vast hole in the ocean bed seven miles deep near the mouth of the Mississippi, and that the Flood just happened to fill that hole with sediment, while leaving nearby areas of the Atlantic unfilled; and that similar coincidences just happened to occur around the mouths of all the world's great rivers.

(Hayward, 1985, p.84)
There is no quick way to get that 7 miles of sediment. It takes time for the earth to sink under a load. Suppose you went down to the Gulf of Mexico one fine day, say just off the Texas coast, and dumped a pile of sediment there 7 miles high! I haven't the foggiest idea how long that mountain of sediment would sit there before sinking down to sea level, but I can assure you that it would not disappear overnight. Parts of that heap would probably still be there centuries later.

A super-charged Mississippi River isn't even going to build mountains to begin with. The onrushing, sediment-loaded water would just be pushed further into the gulf. You would get a "delta" vastly more spread out than the one we have -- and nowhere near 7 miles thick. Think about it."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... river.html

2. Scientist have also discovered that the sun burns up at a rate of about 5 feet per hour.

It doesn't "burn up" at all. It works by fusion, not burning. This causes fluctuations in it's size. Sometimes it gets larger, sometimes it gets smaller by a small amount. But the figure you cite is an error:

"It was in 1979 that astronomers John Eddy and Aram Boornazian presented their paper and published its abstract: "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 18361953." In the April 1980 issue of ICR's Impact series (Impact #82), Russell Akridge picked up the report and naively extended the shrinkage rate of 5 feet/hour into the indefinite past. As that soon led to an impossible situation, he concluded that the earth was much less than 20 million years old. Soon, Walter Brown, Thomas Barnes, Henry Morris, Hilton Hinderliter, James Hanson, and other creationists were in on the act, and the shrinking-sun argument became a creationist legend.

A number of studies have not found any evidence for a continuous shrinking of the sun. Leslie Morrison, for example, drawing on Edmund Halley's observations of the solar eclipse of 1715, concluded that there is no evidence that the sun is shrinking. His findings were reported in January, 1988 in Gemini (no.18, pp.68). Gemini is the official journal of the Royal Greenwich Observatory."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... nking.html

3. Scientist also tell us that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of 2 inches per year. Doesn't sound like much right? However, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

The rate of recession is variable, because it is caused by the effects of ocean tides. Until there were ocean basins, there would have been no recession at all. It happens (because of the placement of continents at this time) to be especially strong.

. Both the earth and moon collect cosmic dust. Erosion on earth has caused very little of the dust to remain on the earth's surface. The moon has no erosion. Evolutionist and NASA experts expected to find that the moon's dust would be over 50 feet deep. Man were they shocked to find that in its deepest part it was only 3 inches deep!

Not really. That's why they weren't worried about the lunar lander sinking. The originally estimate of cosmic dust was wildly inflated because it did not control for dust from the Earth itself.

"In a conference held in late 1963, on the Lunar Surface Layer, McCracken and Dublin state that

"The lunar surface layer thus formed would, therefore, consist of a mixture of lunar material and interplanetary material (primarily of cometary origin) from 10 cm to 1 m thick. The low value for the accretion rate for the small particles is not adequate to produce large scale dust erosion or to form deep layers of dust on the moon, for the flux has probably remained fairly constant during the past several billion years." (p. 204)
(Shore, 1984, p.34)
In 1965, a conference was held on the nature of the lunar surface. The basic conclusion of this conference was that both from the optical properties of the scattering of sunlight observed from the Earth, and from the early Ranger photographs, there was no evidence for an extensive dust layer.

(Shore, 1984, p.34)
Thus, several years before man landed on the moon there was a general feeling that our astronauts would not be greeted by vast layers of cosmic dust. Although direct confirmation was not yet at hand, allowing a few dissenting opinions, few scientists expected even as much as three feet of cosmic dust on the moon. In May 1966 Surveyor I had landed on the moon, thus putting an end to any lingering doubts about a manned landing sinking in dust.

The cosmic dust argument was already obsolete by the time Henry Morris included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. It was already obsolete when Harold Slusher wrote his article three years earlier."
(same source)

There are other things one could look at and see the folly of evolution.

As you can see, these "objections" are all based on the assumption of the people inventing them that you won't know enough to challenge them.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I guess some people don't realize that stars oscillate.

If the temperatures in January were averaging - 9 degrees C, and six months later in July are averaging + 24 degrees C, well then by next January the temperatures will be +57 degrees C. Oh my god it is going to be too hot around here to sustain life!

Please, take your mountains of evidence to http://www.drdino.com and claim your $250,000 and then lend me twenty please.

If you can convince me that magic invisible dragons do NOT live in my back yard I will give you $1,000,000 US!

 

[xxangelzkiss]

"To other creationists - what is your single most important reason, besides the Bible, to believe that evolution is false?"

ahhh i finally get to speak on something that has recently ignitied my passion!!!

well as of recently more and more scientists have been turning from evolution to an intelligent designer of the universe. why is this? Well Science is pointing towards God!!

What does Evolution Claim?
All organisms are related through "common ancestry."
All organisms arose through the process of mutation and natural selection.
All organisms arose and persist because of the random chance processes of nature.

read this:

[/img]

and read the book "Case for a Creator"by lee strobel it has scientific evidence that's points to a intelligent designer...it's truly amzaing.