The biggest problem with Christianity is Christians, as a Christian I find that so often to be the case. I sometimes agree with what you say and sometimes want to just slap you through your monitor.
I agree
You keep saying "we creationists believe" as if there's only one interpretation of scripture. The bible is meant to tell us things we could not figure out ourselves (We could not have figured out the trinity or Christ's sacrifice, for example, without divine revelation of those things.) and contains many different writing styles. Some is poetry, some is history, some is laws. It is, in effect, a love letter from a parent to the children. Christians take various interpretations, quite a few, myself included, simply admit that we don't know how it happened in regards to the floods. I can of course think of a few ways, but I don't know. He could have used natural forces, he could have just plonked down a few miles of water, I don't know and that is OK. You are entitled to your interpretations, but please don't lump me in with your interpretation as you seem to frequently do.
You are right, I shouldn't do a generic all encompassing statement, as you also can't pin down what an evolutionist believe as they all believe different things. You are free to assume how God did the flood to the parameters givens in the Bible.
If Science says that the world is 14 billion years old, then great.
Wrong, lets assume that science says that and it's not the spin put on it from a atheist world view like now. If the Earth is 4.5 billions then that would make God a lier not only in Genesis, but also Jesus himself. It would make his death meaningless as sin and death would be already in the world. It would make God a cruel and sloppy designer unable to make anything complex and needed pain and suffering to get anywhere. The believe in long ages total undermines the Bible and Atheists can see this quite clearly. The another issue here is why not take him at his word? He says it did it in 6 days, 6000 years agos. If you dont believe in what he says how can you possible believe him when he says your sins are forgiven?
Side note: The atheist's believe is that it is the universe that is 14 billion years old, not the earth. This use to be a problem in the past for creationists as it's obvious how far the stars are away but we now have our own cosmologies to explain an old universe (stars created on 4 day) yet the Earth being 6000 years old. The two are not incompatible anymore, only based on the Genesis record.
Science and Christianity are not at odds. Science and some Christians interpretation of scripture is. If anything, science of the 20th century has been a boon for Christianity and a major headache for Atheists. 200 years ago we did not have Scientific evidence of a fine-tuned universe with a beginning and we also did not have some of the superb Christian philosophy that has arisen over the last 50+ years.
Science and Christianity isn't at odds, only the religion of evolution being masked as "science". I agree that with more advance science we are beginning to understand how radically complex life is, but as predicted in the Bible, the scorners will continue to mock the creator saying everything is just like they were from the beginning.
Now i have to prepare for another reply from an eager evolutionist in another thread.
Thats ok you dont have time, I spent all of my sunday replying my last post to another guy.
I dont know about dissipation of heat, I am not an expert in that matter and I havn't read anything about it either so I hate to use the evolutionist argument of "It had to happen because we see it that way today" and apply it to heat dissipation.. I really do hate that argument, it's logically flawed.
I just relised you might be talking about the nebular theory, It's a invalid position to take if the bodies were created, hence not the entire body was molten, only the parts of the already created smooth surface would of been hot after being hit. And it would of been weeks to months for such surface area to cool down.
With the flood you have made 2 wrong assumptions in that question
1 - It wasn't that rain that caused the flood, "the fountains of the deep opened up", we creationists believe that to be a layer of water below the continenal crust. This theory was is called catastrophic plate tectonics "CPT". Basically the land mass torn about in the Atlantic ocean when the Pacific sunk, opening the crack to a ocean of water which gushed out at super sonic speed because of the pressure. This is the rain that happen, so it's a symptom of that caused the flood. Of course to be fair there is another creationist theory called the water canopy but that would not produce the water required IMO, but it does explain alot of pre flood things
2 - 8000m, I am assuming you think the water had to reach 8000 meters (Mt Everest), this is not the case. The bible said it reach a little above the highest mountain on earth, that highest mountain would not of been Everest. With CPT you will get continents siding off the water layer away from the crack initially at up to 40 meters per hour!. These continents would then rub up against other plates and slow down after folding up and down, causing the mountians today and the deep valleys of the oceans, allowing the water to flow into. Hence we dont know how tall the highest mountain was but if the earth was purely flat then the water would of covered the land by 3 Kms so the mountain had to be shorter than that.
Oh yes Air pressure, The water canopy theory would make the Earth a big hyperbolic chamber, which would make for massive vegetation, allow 70 ton dinosaurs to breath through there horse size nostrils. Today, if you grow a mini tomato plant in these conditions it becomes 14 meters tall produce 15000 tomatos over its live and becomes an attraction in a japanese shopping center. Also some other guy grew piranha and they grew 4x times bigger. Of evidence of increase oxygen levels pre flood is in sap you find air bubbles with 30% oxygren, that 50% more than today and 70 ton dinosaurs that couldn't get enough oxygen with their small (horse size) nostrils .
The water mainly came from underground, yes a lot when into the stratosphere, I dont know how that would effect the temperature. How hot was the water under pressure in CPT? how much did it cool by being sprayed out? I just dont know. But that does raise an interesting question about the Ice age, (which was only on high ground) but we think that was due to the flood interfering with the water cycle around the earth.
I wish you all the best
Cheers
I am impressed you replied back, so I took the time to form my replied as well.
The difference is my belief is evidence based, not mythology based
Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views. Otherwise get a mouse and evolve wings on it. If you cant repeat it, test it and confirm it, it isn't operational science and falls into the "must take on faith" basket.
Now you've stated that you believe the Bible isn't mythology, but it has all the markings of it.
I can see how you would think that. What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.
So you have to go out of your way to make the evidence fit the mythology. Scientists used to be much more religious, but abandoned it because the evidence didn't support it.
All the major lines of science were by creationists. copy and paste below
The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the faulty Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879).
Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He “believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.”
The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were “thinking God’s thoughts after him”. Kepler also calculated a creation date of 3992 BC, close to Ussher’s.
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, were discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727), who also discovered the spectrum of light (so was the forerunner of my own speciality, spectroscopy), invented the reflecting telescope, discovered the exponential law of cooling, and co-invented calculus.
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.
Fair enough, but if God could make the animals come to Noah, he could make them behave on the boat too. For that matter, he didn't need Noah to undertake the superhuman task of creating such a large boat in the first place.
We dont know how the animals behaved in the ship. I would say alot like what they would do now for the ones that were not sleeping. It wasn't exactly a superhuman task to build a ship. Yes it took 100 years to build it. Side note: People lived longer because they were genetically perfect to start with and then DNA errors came in for each generation hence each generation lived shorter (except for Methuselah which his name means It will come when he dies, which was the year of the flood, so his long life was a form of grace by God.).
Oh, is that all? Even allowing that, you suppose one man and his family was able to store food for 20,000 "kinds", which you then have to double for pairs (or 7 pairs, as the case may be), and have enough food to last for months? And the food didn't rot during this time? Come on, this story is fit for children, not grown adults with an education.
Issue 1 - Accretion disks
There are dust rock/disks around stars, one example is pictrous beta, Which to my knowledge is the best example yet even in this it shows a fully formed plant that has already cleared its area of rocks. It does not show a forming planet but an already formed plant.
Note that when I say disks I am not saying those disks are the same in the nebular theory.
A counter example would be our every own Sun. Our Sun has 99.8% of the mass but only 2% of the angular momentum. If the Sun was made out of the nebular theory then just like how a ice skater spins faster when her arms are pulled in, then the Sun should have the bulk of the angular momentum. Yet the evidence shows otherwise.
Issue 2 - Star Nurseries
We see at best are cloudy areas that are getting brighter. We have not observed any stars forming, only glowing gas. The clouds in question are are glowing indicates that they are hot - thousands of degrees.
Problems with star formation from gas is that Gas is too hot to condense by gravity. That is, once you get the gas compressed enough, it becomes too hot and expand out because the particles are bouncing around too fast. This is a basic law of gases.
To get around this problem, it is claimed that you need a nearby super nova to compress the gas to trigger it from the gas's primed state to get it to the critical point of gravitational collapse. There are an observed 200 super novas in our galaxy, there should be been at least 5000 if the universe was old. Also from each of the observed 200 super novas, there are no stars being formed.
Issue 3 - Layered Sediments
The evolutionist view is that the sedimentary layers are millions of years old.
The creationist view is these layers are a result of a global flood covered all the land. (not a local flood)
It is fact that water deposits will form into layers, this is repeatable in labs.
The grand canyon layers are all sedimentary. The "geologic" column is only in the text books. That is no where on earth do you find the fossil record in the order in the textbook the fossil. i.e. Triobytes -> dinosuar -> birds... .
An example of the fossil record supporting creation, is that you never find a transition record of humans or any phylum. (Phylum is roughly how we would describe "Kinds" in the Bible.) There is no dino bird (the archaeopteryx was a fully formed bird with the 2 of the 5 sacks that birds have, yes it had teeth so what several old birds had teeth.) I recommend the book "Evolution: the fossils still say no".
Issue 4 - Moon Craters
I just recently happen to got into an argument with a local preacher here and he wanted to know about the moon cratering supporting a young age. So I written a document around it around 6 pages long
I installed drop box so I could share the document I written if you want to read it,
my file
To summarize:
The argument is the moon is old because there are lots of creators.
The marinas (dark areas) are lava filled areas. Theses are located roughly in one corner of the moon, yet if the moon was evenly bombarded the dark spots will be all over the moon, not just in 1 corner.
There are ghost craters which are lava filled creators which must of happen after the first impact. but since there are so many of these, this musst of happen 500million years after the first impact. why wait so long to be filled in?
In the document I also talked about how the moon as a 1.3Billion year age limit otherwise the Earth would of destroyed it before it assembled.
Issue 5 - Distance of Light
There is a creationist cosmology, look up Russell Humphrey, he had several ideas, basically the stars/galaxies was created very close to earth. This would of put earth below the event horizon of a black hole. The size of the black hole's event horizon was very large, think no like a vortex but a pan pressed down and earth in the c
You have missed the point of the starting assumptions of a creationist.
Creationist will hold the starting assumption that Titan was created already in orbit around Saturn, hence there will be no accretion disk.
So it is a logical fallacy to try to push a nebular theory into the creation model then use that to discredit the creationist model.
If the creationist scenario is correct, we would not expect it to be forming.
The rational of my conclusion for Titan is young is the atmosphere indicates recent creation by lack of ethane from the 4.9% methane in the air. UV light would of broken down the methane completely in just 10 million years. But in 4.5 billion years, we would expect to see such high concentrations of ethane if Methane was constantly being regenerated yet we don't see that.
Neither, I am pointing out that abiogenesis is impossible and it's only hope in evolution that is used to say there is life on Titan. (because if it happen here it must happen everywhere)
And as for evolution, you must have long ages hence the reinterpretation of the facts with speculations that Titan is refilling it's lakes.
So I was pointing out the philosophy used to come to his conclusion, not any facts of science.
Instead of Titan being billions of years old, the evidence suggest that Titan is only thousands of years old because of the evaporation of the methane.
Yet the desire to prove life on other planets/moons requires for long ages hence the interpretation of replenishment of the pools. Evidence plesae?'
I know its not popular to say it, but there is no life on Titan, abiogenesis doesn't happen and no amount of speculation will put it there.
Cheers
1 - It doesn't matter if he knew or not knew he was writing scripture. But in all probabilities he probably knew it was going to be scripture as when it was written in 63AD, he is referring to both old testament and almost all of the New Testament.
By the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, all of the New Testament books had already been written except for 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and the apostle John's writings Inspiration
I remember in the OT one prophet didn't know what the hell he was saying but still knew he was writing scripture so even understanding (at the time) is not a requirement. He ask God what is the meaning of this and God said to shut up and just write it, to paraphrase it a little.
2 - Of course not. Only place God written directly is in exodus with the 10 commandments, Jesus's speeches in the NT were recorded by the every ones you are trying to degrade. If you can't trust their testimony of what they say, how you trust what they said Jesus said?
The vast majority of the text are by humans (sometimes openly declaring to mouthing for God, but still humans).
3 - The inspiration of the scriptures are actually attributed to God, Holy Spirit and Jesus.
Father Hebrews 10:5
Son Philippians 2:7
Holy Spirit Luke 1:35
The are many attributes that are assigned to all three. Scroll Down a little to see the list
But again God has signed his code. There are hepatic structures that would only be there if the Old and New testaments where put together. Did you even try to make a fictional genealogy that matches Mathew's hepatic structures like in the video I linked to before?
No human could of done that, go on, give it a try and you will see how hard it is, yet it's in there and linking both OT and NW, and the genealogy of Christ. It's really amazing.
Yes some Christians will be speaking on behalf of God, like when they give prophesy but there have only been 12 disciples and only recorded 19 apostles.
According to 1Cor. 1:1 & 9, to be an Apostle you must have seen the Lord, and been called to be one directly by Him.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_apostles_were_there#ixzz1xKsPe07E
So you know the genealogy recorded has many limitations on it which meant it could only be written by someone not human (inspired), because of how complex it is. Please try an make a fictional geneology in the much easier language of English but still matching the hepatic structures as talked about in the video. Do it now, open up word, make up some shit up of about 20 dead people in the lineage and see if you get even 3 rules mention within hour. (There are actually 70 rules in the text in the greek language which is much more precise than english)
So when you post back, tell me how far you got with your genealogy please. It is an impossible thing to do in your life time, even with super computers. But that will let you know God inspired Paul what to say down to the letter.
I really need to sleep now,
Good night, TheLink,
Cheers
Madfan
Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16
The link I gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM about the Bible Heptadic Structure showing how carefully the text is written. No human and especially no fisherman from 2000 years ago could of written this down in geek. This is a signature from the Creator himself. Why would he sign something about himself unless it is true?
The bible is full of these things which no human without a computer could of even possibly do this. So God has put his signature in the text, does that mean he supports what is written?
Side note: With the same formula you can calculate PI to 4 decimal places with the first verse of genesis, you can get "e" with the other big creation verse which is the first verse of Luke. E wasn't discovered until the 16th century yet it's encoded in the numerical value of the text. God has eternity on his hands so he place these things all throughout the bible. It's amazing to discover these things.
I dont say the bible should be taken literally, it should be taken as plain reading. Palms is poetry, Revelation is prophecy, Matthew, Luke, Mark & John are a historical account, which do contains parables that Jesus spoke, but his genealogy isn't a parable. it records the names of people who lived and died. The Jews were really big on tracking their ancestry until the Romans retook Israel in 73ad
Plus Jesus to fulfill prophecy in the old testament he had to came from the line of David and from a woman not a seed from the man. Hence is ancestry is recorded.
Have you watched the video I gave you and made a fictional family tree with the limitations he gave? Mathew does it.
I dont view you as rude. I view this guy as rude: another post
I view rudeness as being insincere or actively hostile. Just speaking your mind may be blunt plus I am the one provoking this argument.:-)
But I am amazed you did and that you actually thought of my feelings. I am just too used to being put down because the others are trying to justify themselfs.
Thank you.
That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith
I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.
Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place
Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.
how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.
It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.
There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.
What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.
Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.
They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?
Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib
The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it.
From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.
I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology. Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers. The Arc was a super tanker.
Are you aware that the lower rib of a Human is the only bone in the body that will regrow back if it is removed proving the protected sheet around the bone isn't destroyed. The concept of God putting to sleep Adam gave the idea to the man who invented anesthesia.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene. Soon Man will be able to do that.
Yet you think God who is much more advanced and made Adam (think star trek transporter beam) and so has the blueprints already is unscientific???
Also on a theological response, by making Eve from Adam, no one can say females are not humans. People would of tried that if they could.
Define the word evolved please.
- Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
- Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
The word Evolution has several different meanings and some of the meanings creationists agree with, and some others we do not. We creationist agree only that which operation science can prove. Of course once one of the bacteria changes are observed then you will say that is evolution of another type of change. That is the classic Fallacies of Ambiguity. Hence I ask what type of change are you referring too? because in the above example, they are devolving from a functional state to a less functional state. The opposite of the grand theory of evolution. (sometimes the devolving can be an advantage but it does not show evolution)
Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
We are not talking about fossils inbetween species here, We are talking between 2 totally different creatures.
These things lived from 100s of millions of years, we would have millions of these fossils yet there is linking between the phylum.
As Charles himself said which is still true to this day:
Charles Darwin:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413
Gould said:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. S.J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.
Could you clearify what you mean by
Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it
Of course the Bible will say that didn't happen because evolution is a made up story, it didn't happen. Operation Science says it can't happen. The fossil record doesn't say it happen despite how much you pray it does.
Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
These are basic questions and if you declare this story to be correct, then you can show it in the fossil record. Yet the record only shows fully show creatures and not transitional between the phylum.
As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about
Ah, my mistake, the standard way is in the ocean. I am wrong on that. To avoid bones they say mainly plankton and bacteria.
Wouldn't they still get washed away? otherwise we would see this happening all over the sea beds.
Anyway, I did a bit more searching and found an article about an oil field under granite which means the oil field was not made only by dead sea creatures.
Granite link
Cheers
Chris
Hi Raenex,
When you see a car smashed to pieces on the side of the road do you think that Ford designed their car to look like that? Smashed car from google
From the christian view we live in a fallen world now, God created the Earth to be very good, but it is not good anymore.
Parasites, baterias, (even viruses?) can provide beneficial services to a host (e.g. humans need baterias in our guts.)
Once the curse has happen, degeneration starts to occur (a photocopy of a copy of a copy is always worst compared to the original). So once a virus, bateria, fungus, etc had a useful perpose, they many currently dont serve the original design but can only do what the degraded form allows them.
The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates. There are no half trilobyte to bateria, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptile, reptiles to dinosour. The 55 kinds of dinosours (out of over a 1000 species) all appear fully formed. Dinosours to Birds. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird (a strange bird with teeth but still fully a bird). Monkeys to Humans, want me to list the number of hoaxs over the years? Neanderthal Man, Peeking Man, Java Man (Now called Homo Erectus), Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Cro magnon man, Lucy.
If evolution is true, we would expect to see millions of transitional fossils in the record, yet we dont any linking between the major phylum.
Do you know about all the hoaxs of what I just listed above for humans? Tell me which one you came from:-)
Cheers
Chris
Well since I am a programmer and not a geologist I cant test them, But I can point to some examples.
For example of a large deposit of coal see the south of Australia http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood This coal seam is 300kms by 300kms and up to 700m down. It's a vast deposit of coal which is highly unlikely if you expect a mash to sink just right.
Now the story of standard geology would say that animal after animal decided to walk into a black lake and have a swin until they drowned in massive numbers. (Where are the bones in the oil?). After that, for some strange reason the lake of oil is then covered with dirt without being washed away. The depth of these oil fields varies through out the world, some being 300ft and others 5700ft (1700meters) below the ground and the deepest going just below 12Kms. So you would need 12Kms of dirt to pile up (how many trillions/billions of years is that at current rates?) after 100 million years of dead things rotting away.
Now as far fetch as the idea of dead things turning into oil 12KMs down in the Earth, this is another possibility.
What if the oil is not made from dead things but are natural geochemistry in the ground. Lets see if there is any other forms of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the universe. There is methane & ethane on Titan, Uranus, Neptune, (Jupiter & Saturn I think as well).
So we know Hydrocarbons are on other planets & moons and you don't believe there were dinosaurs & plant life on Titan, Jupiter, etc... Why can't this chemistry be natural to the planet Earth as well?
Can you explain how oil is 12kms below the Earth surface? or how billions of animals would choose to die in the same place over and over and sudenly get covered up by sedimentary rock (water washed over it) ?
So Flood geology can explain some of the evidences found in the natural world. (note chemistry of where oil fields are being natural to earth isn't actually flood related, but the coal seams can be). I havn't read about of bones or tree trunks being buried in oil fields, but wouldn't millions of bones be in there? But there are many examples of tree trunks being petrified in coal indicating the coal in the vast coal seams are young i.e. buried all at once in a very rapid about of time
Reading that link you gave, it sounds like the ICR are kind of like assholes and they are struggling to understand everything. Also the author of that article is still believing that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form where it would of been very quickly created in weeks after the dam broke open. (Dam of water happen after the flood), Mt St Helens within 24 hours in 1980 carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon.
Slashdot limited my replies for 24 hours so sorry for the delay.
There are 2 different and both correct genealogies of Jesus in the NT. One goes through the legal father and the other through the biological mother. Since there was a cause put on the male line Jesus could not be biologically born from the male decent, hence virgin birth. by being born as Joesph as his legal father, he gains the legal right to be a king of david, and yet still remain free of the cursed blood line.
With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
As for the complexity and master piece involved in the genology in Mathews (written by a fisherman) see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM and part 2
Side Note: Chuck Missler is the reason why I am a YEC. He shows with his videos and radio shows the extreme complexities in the bible and the how it is a master piece.
That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.
the good news is that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins to take the punishment of sin, and rose again on the 3rd day. If you say God didn't create everything and death happen before man got cursed then the payment of sin by Jesus is meaningless. Death is the punishment of sin. Because of sin, death came to our world. Therefor there had to of been no death before otherwise Jesus paid for something he did not had too. Genesis is a foundation of the bible, otherwise there is no context for the events that happen in history.
Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong
The distance is not in question. Again the time passes differently depending where you are. This exposition could of well of happen 169,000 years ago over there. That is not an issue when the time passed at different speeds according to the how deep in the well you are (where earth is the last out of the well).
The simulation comment is missing the point, that could be analogy to God's perspective sinces hes outside of time altogether, but this is irrelevant. We are talking about time from Earth's point. So a super nova going off 169,000 years ago would of happen on day 4 on earth while earth was still frozen in time because it was still in the white hole (black hole of the universe being stretch out).
There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.
I agree, this scenerio isn't that though.
FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy.
I take the opposite view, Christians who roll over and let people contradict the bible based purely on philosophical grounds are not doing their duty to spread the message of the gospel. Christains who agree with evolution (and big bang) are actually false teachers and God hates them, will be judge. (still saved but they wont be a happy according to judgment)
To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis. Hes either 100% correct and God created Adam or hes a lier so why follow him. This is why I am passionate about creationism. By rejecting Genesis, you and start to throw away any book in the bible.
As in II Peter 3: 3-5
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished
This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.
Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.
Although it's not a "core" of christianity, you will have to be schizophrenic to believe old ages and the bible at the same time. Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. The genology in Mathew is incredibly complex. I'll try to find a link about it's detail... but now I got to pick up my wife from the train station.
Cheers
Chris.
While getting a link containing more information, I found it's the nerves that are infront, not the blood cells. oops.
The blood vessels are right behind in sensor in the "choroid".
If you designed the eye so that it's nerves are behind the eye, then the eye has to have the blood infront which would be as good as a hemorrhage or detached which suffers from refresh issues from bright lights.
This site talks about it much more than I could: http://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument
and http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins
The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:
One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.
It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.
Hello,
Creationist here, Oil fields could well be geological in nature and not from dead corpses as commonly believed.. here and here from a quick google.
As for coal seams, the creationist believe is that the Earth had a much greater environment at creation. The creationist believe that there might of been a canopy of water over the earth before the flood which 1 - reduced X rays, 2 created greater pressure in the atmosphere.
This greater pressure would make the entire earth into a hyperbolic chamber. A scientist decided to grow a tomato in a hyperbolic chamber and the tomato plant grew 14 ft high and produce 15000 tomatos which instead of being miniature where "full" size. The moved the tomato tree into a shopping center.
This perfect environment meant that there was alot more vegataion on earth. Alot more. The increase pressure also meant more water vapor which and as a hot house gas meant more heat on earth, which is why you get 300ft trees burried under 1000ft of permafrost ground in Alaska. quick google again
I dare say in tongue and check why we hasn't done flood geology mining is we gave our money to the poor.:-P Also I have no interest in drilling.
Also please explain what makes Flood geology good or bad about drilling? It doesn't say anything about where to drill. But I am not a geologist so I can't comment.
May I recommend you read the book "Dismantling the Big Bang" by Alex Williams and John Hartnett.
This book shows that creationist arguments to fit the data observed much better than the big bang which requires alot of adhoc assumptions and just so stories.
It even does an table with Occam's razor to show which is more likely.
The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.
A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.
About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up.
the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center. http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
I take a contrary view of this. I am familiar with what / how evolution suppose to work and we find that evolutionists are wrong based on observational science.
The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.
I can't understand how knowledgeable men in evolution will be willing to believe in this as a science when science does it best to show how it is impossible. In the end I found such people when shown the flaws in thier "evidences" chooses to believe despite what they are shown. In the vain hope that someone else knows more than what they know and so their really is no God for them to get right with.
Not trying to do an emotional argument below..
I find the myth of evolution to be rather insidious, its a world view which has fast effects on the morality of a man. e.g. There is nothing wrong in killing a bag of chemicals is there? Nothing wrong in stealing, etc... Therefor this should not be part of our culture. Society will be better off without this cancer.
Tell me, since you say observational science says evolution is correct, what is the answer to the below:
- How did the first rock turn itself into a self replicating system. Please provide evidence for this. How did the chemicals do this? There have been several theories about this and all disproven but never reject. (I bet you will try to say the uller/gray experiment from the 50s)
- Any evidence of any kind (phylum) changing into another kind. E.g. Horse into Cat, Bacterias although they can adapt they are always bacterias and never turn into trilobites or spider. Flies are bread all the time, they are still only flies. btw, difference species are not what I am talking about as they can happen in a short time, e.g. Humans breading Dogs.
- Any evidence of information gaining in the gnome (gene duplication doesn't add information - e.g. there is a bacteria with 85000 copies of 1 gene, it has more DNA than a human but it's still a bacteria, the example of bateria gaining the ability to process citrus acid in an oxygen environment is an example of mutations damaging a functional switch in bateria, i.e the reverse of evolution (which in this scenerio is good)).
Please show these evidences in operational science.
Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.
Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.
For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change). NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.
- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.
- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.
So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers.
Chris.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem with Christianity is Christians, as a Christian I find that so often to be the case. I sometimes agree with what you say and sometimes want to just slap you through your monitor.
I agree
You keep saying "we creationists believe" as if there's only one interpretation of scripture. The bible is meant to tell us things we could not figure out ourselves (We could not have figured out the trinity or Christ's sacrifice, for example, without divine revelation of those things.) and contains many different writing styles. Some is poetry, some is history, some is laws. It is, in effect, a love letter from a parent to the children. Christians take various interpretations, quite a few, myself included, simply admit that we don't know how it happened in regards to the floods. I can of course think of a few ways, but I don't know. He could have used natural forces, he could have just plonked down a few miles of water, I don't know and that is OK. You are entitled to your interpretations, but please don't lump me in with your interpretation as you seem to frequently do.
You are right, I shouldn't do a generic all encompassing statement, as you also can't pin down what an evolutionist believe as they all believe different things. You are free to assume how God did the flood to the parameters givens in the Bible.
If Science says that the world is 14 billion years old, then great.
Wrong, lets assume that science says that and it's not the spin put on it from a atheist world view like now. If the Earth is 4.5 billions then that would make God a lier not only in Genesis, but also Jesus himself. It would make his death meaningless as sin and death would be already in the world. It would make God a cruel and sloppy designer unable to make anything complex and needed pain and suffering to get anywhere. The believe in long ages total undermines the Bible and Atheists can see this quite clearly. The another issue here is why not take him at his word? He says it did it in 6 days, 6000 years agos. If you dont believe in what he says how can you possible believe him when he says your sins are forgiven?
Side note: The atheist's believe is that it is the universe that is 14 billion years old, not the earth. This use to be a problem in the past for creationists as it's obvious how far the stars are away but we now have our own cosmologies to explain an old universe (stars created on 4 day) yet the Earth being 6000 years old. The two are not incompatible anymore, only based on the Genesis record.
Science and Christianity are not at odds. Science and some Christians interpretation of scripture is. If anything, science of the 20th century has been a boon for Christianity and a major headache for Atheists. 200 years ago we did not have Scientific evidence of a fine-tuned universe with a beginning and we also did not have some of the superb Christian philosophy that has arisen over the last 50+ years.
Science and Christianity isn't at odds, only the religion of evolution being masked as "science". I agree that with more advance science we are beginning to understand how radically complex life is, but as predicted in the Bible, the scorners will continue to mock the creator saying everything is just like they were from the beginning.
Now i have to prepare for another reply from an eager evolutionist in another thread.
Cheers
Thats ok you dont have time, I spent all of my sunday replying my last post to another guy.
I dont know about dissipation of heat, I am not an expert in that matter and I havn't read anything about it either so I hate to use the evolutionist argument of "It had to happen because we see it that way today" and apply it to heat dissipation.. I really do hate that argument, it's logically flawed.
I just relised you might be talking about the nebular theory, It's a invalid position to take if the bodies were created, hence not the entire body was molten, only the parts of the already created smooth surface would of been hot after being hit. And it would of been weeks to months for such surface area to cool down.
With the flood you have made 2 wrong assumptions in that question
1 - It wasn't that rain that caused the flood, "the fountains of the deep opened up", we creationists believe that to be a layer of water below the continenal crust. This theory was is called catastrophic plate tectonics "CPT". Basically the land mass torn about in the Atlantic ocean when the Pacific sunk, opening the crack to a ocean of water which gushed out at super sonic speed because of the pressure. This is the rain that happen, so it's a symptom of that caused the flood. Of course to be fair there is another creationist theory called the water canopy but that would not produce the water required IMO, but it does explain alot of pre flood things
2 - 8000m, I am assuming you think the water had to reach 8000 meters (Mt Everest), this is not the case. The bible said it reach a little above the highest mountain on earth, that highest mountain would not of been Everest. With CPT you will get continents siding off the water layer away from the crack initially at up to 40 meters per hour!. These continents would then rub up against other plates and slow down after folding up and down, causing the mountians today and the deep valleys of the oceans, allowing the water to flow into. Hence we dont know how tall the highest mountain was but if the earth was purely flat then the water would of covered the land by 3 Kms so the mountain had to be shorter than that.
Oh yes Air pressure, The water canopy theory would make the Earth a big hyperbolic chamber, which would make for massive vegetation, allow 70 ton dinosaurs to breath through there horse size nostrils. Today, if you grow a mini tomato plant in these conditions it becomes 14 meters tall produce 15000 tomatos over its live and becomes an attraction in a japanese shopping center. Also some other guy grew piranha and they grew 4x times bigger. Of evidence of increase oxygen levels pre flood is in sap you find air bubbles with 30% oxygren, that 50% more than today and 70 ton dinosaurs that couldn't get enough oxygen with their small (horse size) nostrils .
The water mainly came from underground, yes a lot when into the stratosphere, I dont know how that would effect the temperature. How hot was the water under pressure in CPT? how much did it cool by being sprayed out? I just dont know. But that does raise an interesting question about the Ice age, (which was only on high ground) but we think that was due to the flood interfering with the water cycle around the earth.
I wish you all the best
Cheers
I am impressed you replied back, so I took the time to form my replied as well.
The difference is my belief is evidence based, not mythology based
Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views. Otherwise get a mouse and evolve wings on it. If you cant repeat it, test it and confirm it, it isn't operational science and falls into the "must take on faith" basket.
I can see how you would think that. What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.
All the major lines of science were by creationists. copy and paste below
We dont know how the animals behaved in the ship. I would say alot like what they would do now for the ones that were not sleeping. It wasn't exactly a superhuman task to build a ship. Yes it took 100 years to build it. Side note: People lived longer because they were genetically perfect to start with and then DNA errors came in for each generation hence each generation lived shorter (except for Methuselah which his name means It will come when he dies, which was the year of the flood, so his long life was a form of grace by God.).
I found a link desc
Issue 1 - Accretion disks
There are dust rock/disks around stars, one example is pictrous beta, Which to my knowledge is the best example yet even in this it shows a fully formed plant that has already cleared its area of rocks. It does not show a forming planet but an already formed plant.
Note that when I say disks I am not saying those disks are the same in the nebular theory.
A counter example would be our every own Sun. Our Sun has 99.8% of the mass but only 2% of the angular momentum. If the Sun was made out of the nebular theory then just like how a ice skater spins faster when her arms are pulled in, then the Sun should have the bulk of the angular momentum. Yet the evidence shows otherwise.
Issue 2 - Star Nurseries
We see at best are cloudy areas that are getting brighter. We have not observed any stars forming, only glowing gas. The clouds in question are are glowing indicates that they are hot - thousands of degrees.
Problems with star formation from gas is that Gas is too hot to condense by gravity. That is, once you get the gas compressed enough, it becomes too hot and expand out because the particles are bouncing around too fast. This is a basic law of gases.
To get around this problem, it is claimed that you need a nearby super nova to compress the gas to trigger it from the gas's primed state to get it to the critical point of gravitational collapse. There are an observed 200 super novas in our galaxy, there should be been at least 5000 if the universe was old. Also from each of the observed 200 super novas, there are no stars being formed.
Issue 3 - Layered Sediments ... .
The evolutionist view is that the sedimentary layers are millions of years old.
The creationist view is these layers are a result of a global flood covered all the land. (not a local flood)
It is fact that water deposits will form into layers, this is repeatable in labs.
The grand canyon layers are all sedimentary. The "geologic" column is only in the text books. That is no where on earth do you find the fossil record in the order in the textbook the fossil. i.e. Triobytes -> dinosuar -> birds
An example of the fossil record supporting creation, is that you never find a transition record of humans or any phylum. (Phylum is roughly how we would describe "Kinds" in the Bible.) There is no dino bird (the archaeopteryx was a fully formed bird with the 2 of the 5 sacks that birds have, yes it had teeth so what several old birds had teeth.) I recommend the book "Evolution: the fossils still say no".
Issue 4 - Moon Craters
I just recently happen to got into an argument with a local preacher here and he wanted to know about the moon cratering supporting a young age. So I written a document around it around 6 pages long
I installed drop box so I could share the document I written if you want to read it, my file
To summarize:
The argument is the moon is old because there are lots of creators. The marinas (dark areas) are lava filled areas. Theses are located roughly in one corner of the moon, yet if the moon was evenly bombarded the dark spots will be all over the moon, not just in 1 corner.
There are ghost craters which are lava filled creators which must of happen after the first impact. but since there are so many of these, this musst of happen 500million years after the first impact. why wait so long to be filled in?
In the document I also talked about how the moon as a 1.3Billion year age limit otherwise the Earth would of destroyed it before it assembled.
Issue 5 - Distance of Light
There is a creationist cosmology, look up Russell Humphrey, he had several ideas, basically the stars/galaxies was created very close to earth. This would of put earth below the event horizon of a black hole. The size of the black hole's event horizon was very large, think no like a vortex but a pan pressed down and earth in the c
Hello Mr2cents,
You have missed the point of the starting assumptions of a creationist.
Creationist will hold the starting assumption that Titan was created already in orbit around Saturn, hence there will be no accretion disk.
So it is a logical fallacy to try to push a nebular theory into the creation model then use that to discredit the creationist model.
If the creationist scenario is correct, we would not expect it to be forming.
The rational of my conclusion for Titan is young is the atmosphere indicates recent creation by lack of ethane from the 4.9% methane in the air. UV light would of broken down the methane completely in just 10 million years. But in 4.5 billion years, we would expect to see such high concentrations of ethane if Methane was constantly being regenerated yet we don't see that.
Cheers
Neither, I am pointing out that abiogenesis is impossible and it's only hope in evolution that is used to say there is life on Titan. (because if it happen here it must happen everywhere)
And as for evolution, you must have long ages hence the reinterpretation of the facts with speculations that Titan is refilling it's lakes.
So I was pointing out the philosophy used to come to his conclusion, not any facts of science.
Alternative story:
Instead of Titan being billions of years old, the evidence suggest that Titan is only thousands of years old because of the evaporation of the methane.
Yet the desire to prove life on other planets/moons requires for long ages hence the interpretation of replenishment of the pools. Evidence plesae?'
I know its not popular to say it, but there is no life on Titan, abiogenesis doesn't happen and no amount of speculation will put it there.
Cheers
I mean
But that will let you know God inspired Mathew and Luke what to say down to each and every single letter.
Cheers
1 - It doesn't matter if he knew or not knew he was writing scripture. But in all probabilities he probably knew it was going to be scripture as when it was written in 63AD, he is referring to both old testament and almost all of the New Testament.
By the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, all of the New Testament books had already been written except for 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and the apostle John's writings
Inspiration
I remember in the OT one prophet didn't know what the hell he was saying but still knew he was writing scripture so even understanding (at the time) is not a requirement. He ask God what is the meaning of this and God said to shut up and just write it, to paraphrase it a little.
2 - Of course not. Only place God written directly is in exodus with the 10 commandments, Jesus's speeches in the NT were recorded by the every ones you are trying to degrade. If you can't trust their testimony of what they say, how you trust what they said Jesus said?
The vast majority of the text are by humans (sometimes openly declaring to mouthing for God, but still humans).
3 - The inspiration of the scriptures are actually attributed to God, Holy Spirit and Jesus.
The are many attributes that are assigned to all three. Scroll Down a little to see the list
But again God has signed his code. There are hepatic structures that would only be there if the Old and New testaments where put together. Did you even try to make a fictional genealogy that matches Mathew's hepatic structures like in the video I linked to before?
No human could of done that, go on, give it a try and you will see how hard it is, yet it's in there and linking both OT and NW, and the genealogy of Christ. It's really amazing.
Yes some Christians will be speaking on behalf of God, like when they give prophesy but there have only been 12 disciples and only recorded 19 apostles.
According to 1Cor. 1:1 & 9, to be an Apostle you must have seen the Lord, and been called to be one directly by Him.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_apostles_were_there#ixzz1xKsPe07E
So you know the genealogy recorded has many limitations on it which meant it could only be written by someone not human (inspired), because of how complex it is. Please try an make a fictional geneology in the much easier language of English but still matching the hepatic structures as talked about in the video. Do it now, open up word, make up some shit up of about 20 dead people in the lineage and see if you get even 3 rules mention within hour. (There are actually 70 rules in the text in the greek language which is much more precise than english)
So when you post back, tell me how far you got with your genealogy please. It is an impossible thing to do in your life time, even with super computers. But that will let you know God inspired Paul what to say down to the letter.
I really need to sleep now,
Good night, TheLink, Cheers Madfan
Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16
The link I gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM about the Bible Heptadic Structure showing how carefully the text is written. No human and especially no fisherman from 2000 years ago could of written this down in geek. This is a signature from the Creator himself. Why would he sign something about himself unless it is true?
The bible is full of these things which no human without a computer could of even possibly do this. So God has put his signature in the text, does that mean he supports what is written?
Side note: With the same formula you can calculate PI to 4 decimal places with the first verse of genesis, you can get "e" with the other big creation verse which is the first verse of Luke. E wasn't discovered until the 16th century yet it's encoded in the numerical value of the text. God has eternity on his hands so he place these things all throughout the bible. It's amazing to discover these things.
I dont say the bible should be taken literally, it should be taken as plain reading. Palms is poetry, Revelation is prophecy, Matthew, Luke, Mark & John are a historical account, which do contains parables that Jesus spoke, but his genealogy isn't a parable. it records the names of people who lived and died. The Jews were really big on tracking their ancestry until the Romans retook Israel in 73ad
Plus Jesus to fulfill prophecy in the old testament he had to came from the line of David and from a woman not a seed from the man. Hence is ancestry is recorded.
Have you watched the video I gave you and made a fictional family tree with the limitations he gave? Mathew does it.
Have a good weekend.
Cheers
I dont view you as rude. I view this guy as rude: another post :-)
I view rudeness as being insincere or actively hostile. Just speaking your mind may be blunt plus I am the one provoking this argument.
But I am amazed you did and that you actually thought of my feelings. I am just too used to being put down because the others are trying to justify themselfs.
Thank you.
I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.
Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.
It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.
There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins
The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia
Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.
Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib
This link gives a great break down of the 2 lines. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932 also look at the image to see it visually.
The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it. From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.
The reason evolution means God did nothing is because the belief behind evolution means everything does things on their own, and no outside interference.
Dawkins says its deluded too
Classic talk about this doesn't work with the God of the Bible.
I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology. Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers. The Arc was a super tanker.
Are you aware that the lower rib of a Human is the only bone in the body that will regrow back if it is removed proving the protected sheet around the bone isn't destroyed. The concept of God putting to sleep Adam gave the idea to the man who invented anesthesia.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene. Soon Man will be able to do that.
Yet you think God who is much more advanced and made Adam (think star trek transporter beam) and so has the blueprints already is unscientific???
Also on a theological response, by making Eve from Adam, no one can say females are not humans. People would of tried that if they could.
Define the word evolved please.
- Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
- Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
The word Evolution has several different meanings and some of the meanings creationists agree with, and some others we do not. We creationist agree only that which operation science can prove. Of course once one of the bacteria changes are observed then you will say that is evolution of another type of change. That is the classic Fallacies of Ambiguity. Hence I ask what type of change are you referring too? because in the above example, they are devolving from a functional state to a less functional state. The opposite of the grand theory of evolution. (sometimes the devolving can be an advantage but it does not show evolution)
Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
We are not talking about fossils inbetween species here, We are talking between 2 totally different creatures.
These things lived from 100s of millions of years, we would have millions of these fossils yet there is linking between the phylum.
As Charles himself said which is still true to this day:
Could you clearify what you mean by
Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it
Of course the Bible will say that didn't happen because evolution is a made up story, it didn't happen. Operation Science says it can't happen. The fossil record doesn't say it happen despite how much you pray it does.
Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
These are basic questions and if you declare this story to be correct, then you can show it in the fossil record. Yet the record only shows fully show creatures and not transitional between the phylum.
As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about
Ah, my mistake, the standard way is in the ocean. I am wrong on that. To avoid bones they say mainly plankton and bacteria.
Wouldn't they still get washed away? otherwise we would see this happening all over the sea beds.
Anyway, I did a bit more searching and found an article about an oil field under granite which means the oil field was not made only by dead sea creatures. Granite link
Cheers
Chris
When you see a car smashed to pieces on the side of the road do you think that Ford designed their car to look like that?
Smashed car from google
From the christian view we live in a fallen world now, God created the Earth to be very good, but it is not good anymore.
Parasites, baterias, (even viruses?) can provide beneficial services to a host (e.g. humans need baterias in our guts.)
Once the curse has happen, degeneration starts to occur (a photocopy of a copy of a copy is always worst compared to the original). So once a virus, bateria, fungus, etc had a useful perpose, they many currently dont serve the original design but can only do what the degraded form allows them.
The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates. There are no half trilobyte to bateria, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptile, reptiles to dinosour. The 55 kinds of dinosours (out of over a 1000 species) all appear fully formed. Dinosours to Birds. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird (a strange bird with teeth but still fully a bird). Monkeys to Humans, want me to list the number of hoaxs over the years? Neanderthal Man, Peeking Man, Java Man (Now called Homo Erectus), Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Cro magnon man, Lucy.
If evolution is true, we would expect to see millions of transitional fossils in the record, yet we dont any linking between the major phylum.
Do you know about all the hoaxs of what I just listed above for humans? Tell me which one you came from :-)
Cheers
Chris
Well since I am a programmer and not a geologist I cant test them, But I can point to some examples.
For example of a large deposit of coal see the south of Australia http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
This coal seam is 300kms by 300kms and up to 700m down. It's a vast deposit of coal which is highly unlikely if you expect a mash to sink just right.
Now the story of standard geology would say that animal after animal decided to walk into a black lake and have a swin until they drowned in massive numbers. (Where are the bones in the oil?). After that, for some strange reason the lake of oil is then covered with dirt without being washed away. The depth of these oil fields varies through out the world, some being 300ft and others 5700ft (1700meters) below the ground and the deepest going just below 12Kms. So you would need 12Kms of dirt to pile up (how many trillions/billions of years is that at current rates?) after 100 million years of dead things rotting away.
Now as far fetch as the idea of dead things turning into oil 12KMs down in the Earth, this is another possibility.
What if the oil is not made from dead things but are natural geochemistry in the ground.
Lets see if there is any other forms of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the universe. There is methane & ethane on Titan, Uranus, Neptune, (Jupiter & Saturn I think as well).
So we know Hydrocarbons are on other planets & moons and you don't believe there were dinosaurs & plant life on Titan, Jupiter, etc... Why can't this chemistry be natural to the planet Earth as well?
Can you explain how oil is 12kms below the Earth surface? or how billions of animals would choose to die in the same place over and over and sudenly get covered up by sedimentary rock (water washed over it) ?
So Flood geology can explain some of the evidences found in the natural world. (note chemistry of where oil fields are being natural to earth isn't actually flood related, but the coal seams can be). I havn't read about of bones or tree trunks being buried in oil fields, but wouldn't millions of bones be in there? But there are many examples of tree trunks being petrified in coal indicating the coal in the vast coal seams are young i.e. buried all at once in a very rapid about of time
Reading that link you gave, it sounds like the ICR are kind of like assholes and they are struggling to understand everything.
Also the author of that article is still believing that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form where it would of been very quickly created in weeks after the dam broke open. (Dam of water happen after the flood), Mt St Helens within 24 hours in 1980 carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon.
Slashdot limited my replies for 24 hours so sorry for the delay.
There are 2 different and both correct genealogies of Jesus in the NT. One goes through the legal father and the other through the biological mother. Since there was a cause put on the male line Jesus could not be biologically born from the male decent, hence virgin birth. by being born as Joesph as his legal father, he gains the legal right to be a king of david, and yet still remain free of the cursed blood line.
With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
As for the complexity and master piece involved in the genology in Mathews (written by a fisherman) see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM and part 2
Side Note: Chuck Missler is the reason why I am a YEC. He shows with his videos and radio shows the extreme complexities in the bible and the how it is a master piece.
That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.
the good news is that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins to take the punishment of sin, and rose again on the 3rd day. If you say God didn't create everything and death happen before man got cursed then the payment of sin by Jesus is meaningless. Death is the punishment of sin. Because of sin, death came to our world. Therefor there had to of been no death before otherwise Jesus paid for something he did not had too. Genesis is a foundation of the bible, otherwise there is no context for the events that happen in history.
Cheers
Chris
Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong
The distance is not in question. Again the time passes differently depending where you are. This exposition could of well of happen 169,000 years ago over there. That is not an issue when the time passed at different speeds according to the how deep in the well you are (where earth is the last out of the well).
The simulation comment is missing the point, that could be analogy to God's perspective sinces hes outside of time altogether, but this is irrelevant. We are talking about time from Earth's point. So a super nova going off 169,000 years ago would of happen on day 4 on earth while earth was still frozen in time because it was still in the white hole (black hole of the universe being stretch out).
There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.
I agree, this scenerio isn't that though.
FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy.
I take the opposite view, Christians who roll over and let people contradict the bible based purely on philosophical grounds are not doing their duty to spread the message of the gospel. Christains who agree with evolution (and big bang) are actually false teachers and God hates them, will be judge. (still saved but they wont be a happy according to judgment)
To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis. Hes either 100% correct and God created Adam or hes a lier so why follow him. This is why I am passionate about creationism. By rejecting Genesis, you and start to throw away any book in the bible.
As in II Peter 3: 3-5
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished
This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.
Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.
Although it's not a "core" of christianity, you will have to be schizophrenic to believe old ages and the bible at the same time. Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. The genology in Mathew is incredibly complex. I'll try to find a link about it's detail ... but now I got to pick up my wife from the train station.
Cheers
Chris.
The blood vessels are right behind in sensor in the "choroid". If you designed the eye so that it's nerves are behind the eye, then the eye has to have the blood infront which would be as good as a hemorrhage or detached which suffers from refresh issues from bright lights.
This site talks about it much more than I could:
http://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument
and http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins
The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:
One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.
It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.
Hello, Creationist here, Oil fields could well be geological in nature and not from dead corpses as commonly believed..
:-P
here and here from a quick google.
As for coal seams, the creationist believe is that the Earth had a much greater environment at creation. The creationist believe that there might of been a canopy of water over the earth before the flood which 1 - reduced X rays, 2 created greater pressure in the atmosphere. This greater pressure would make the entire earth into a hyperbolic chamber. A scientist decided to grow a tomato in a hyperbolic chamber and the tomato plant grew 14 ft high and produce 15000 tomatos which instead of being miniature where "full" size. The moved the tomato tree into a shopping center.
This perfect environment meant that there was alot more vegataion on earth. Alot more. The increase pressure also meant more water vapor which and as a hot house gas meant more heat on earth, which is why you get 300ft trees burried under 1000ft of permafrost ground in Alaska.
quick google again
I dare say in tongue and check why we hasn't done flood geology mining is we gave our money to the poor.
Also I have no interest in drilling.
Also please explain what makes Flood geology good or bad about drilling? It doesn't say anything about where to drill. But I am not a geologist so I can't comment.
May I recommend you read the book "Dismantling the Big Bang" by Alex Williams and John Hartnett.
This book shows that creationist arguments to fit the data observed much better than the big bang which requires alot of adhoc assumptions and just so stories.
It even does an table with Occam's razor to show which is more likely.
It's a good read.
Cheers
The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.
A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.
About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up. the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.
I can't understand how knowledgeable men in evolution will be willing to believe in this as a science when science does it best to show how it is impossible. In the end I found such people when shown the flaws in thier "evidences" chooses to believe despite what they are shown. In the vain hope that someone else knows more than what they know and so their really is no God for them to get right with.
Not trying to do an emotional argument below..
I find the myth of evolution to be rather insidious, its a world view which has fast effects on the morality of a man. e.g. There is nothing wrong in killing a bag of chemicals is there? Nothing wrong in stealing, etc... Therefor this should not be part of our culture. Society will be better off without this cancer.
Tell me, since you say observational science says evolution is correct, what is the answer to the below:
Please show these evidences in operational science.
Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.
Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs
Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.
For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.
- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.
- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.
So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.