|
Post by RaceWright on Mar 19, 2004 14:01:04 GMT -5
40 day flood? I have never claimed 40 days, it was a whole year that the earth was underwater. This is a signicant amount of time especially if there was volcanic activity under this water.
Peat and coal have been produced in labatories in a matter of days and weeks, as have opals, and diamonds. The earth is more powerful than labs, if it is possible for man to do something in weeks, the earth I am sure can do the same in thousands of years.
Glaciers don't rip round the earth with rocketpacks or anything like that, I am not an expert on this, but I have heard of glaciers moving forty feet in a year.
It has been said that 6-days doesnt hold scientific water. With geological formations, the fossil record, and biological evidence.
Geologically, if you remove the flood from equation evolution does not hold scientific water. In the past thirty years maps have changed the recorded hights of mountains, some of them by over ten meters. Now, lets see at a rate of ten meters per thirty years, billions of years ago, the mountains of the world would have been huge. . . too big in fact.
One year of the world being under water, plus volcanic activity (earthquakes and the such) is enough to drastically change the earth's surface.
Biological evidence? There is no biological evidence that can guanruntee the earth's age past two hundred years. I just recently read an article in Creation magazine saying that Creationist scientists had used some form of a dating method and the results were showed a 6-day timeframe.
Fossil record supports a global flood.
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Mar 19, 2004 14:16:06 GMT -5
40 day flood? I have never claimed 40 days, it was a whole year that the earth was underwater. This is a signicant amount of time especially if there was volcanic activity under this water. That's a good point. 40 days and 40 nights it rained. It was more like a year that the water was just sitting there. And the "fountains of the deep burst forth" if I recall. We're talking massive water here. Then think about the earth swallowing allot of that water back into the deep. His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Mar 20, 2004 1:34:26 GMT -5
Now as I see it evolution is only possible if God is guiding every step of the way. Evolution is a process of errors, mutation. From ameba to "adam" (respect given to the "metaphorical" adamite view) God must have been working to make DNA mess up. By evolutionistic views man is a series of God messing up.
I reject the idea that I am billion's of mistakes piled together, even God's mistakes. This is why I will never be drawn to believe evolution. I am no mistake, God made no mistakes when he made me.
I am curious, if there is no single man adam, then is there a definite place where man receives a soul? Primates have no souls, men have souls, assuming (for the moment) that evolution is true, then there is a place where a man had a soul but his father did not. It isnt possible to have a half a soul.
What is the view on this?
If Adam was a metaphor, then how did all of mankind fall? I see three possible ways, either all of mankind fell at once in one action, or one man fell in one action, or mankind has always been fallen. Which of the three is right? or is there another which is right which I didn't think of? Please explain as well.
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Mar 20, 2004 12:25:33 GMT -5
Mutations aren't errors, they're not mistakes. They're mutations.
The Fossil record does not support a global flood. At all. There should be piles of creatures all in one place from ages that are supposed to be very very far apart all over the place.
Nor does the geological record. The canyons and gulches created by Mt. St. Helens are nothing next to the grand canyon, and they're not even the same type.
The peat and coal I've never heard of, but I know for a fact that lab produced diamonds and opals are obvious to the trained eye and are not nearly as hard. Beyond this, We've created elements that didn't even exist previously in particle acceloraters, a highly artificial environment, just like the one used to produce fake diamonds. Just because it can be done in the artifical environment of a lab, does not mean it can be done in nature.
The thing about mountains shrinking is totally specious. The same mountains aren't in the same places reducing at the same rate since the beginning of time. Geological forces force them up and move them around, and they get eroded by wind over time. The creation of mountains isn't a one time thing, and even creationist geology books don't make that claim.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Mar 20, 2004 15:18:55 GMT -5
If the fossil record doesn't support the flood explain how we have fossils of jellyfish like creatures?
The fossils uncovered were miles away from the ocean, (the creatures were ocean creatures) and were soft bodies. After dying and being washed onto the shores with their soft bodies they would normally be eaten by carrion birds, or decompose other ways. fossilization by evolutionary standards takes thousands of years to complete. there is absolutely no way a soft bodied organism will fossilize left alone in the sun. but with the flood it can happen.
Now if I remember my biology class on genetics aright, then there are four types of something in the DNA strand, usually represented by four letters (I dont know if all of them are correct, but for the purpose of arguing lets assume that I can change it to the right later) the four letters I think are T G C A (I think) in regular (everyday cell reproduction) fashion T must be opposite of C in the strand, and G must be opposite A. When T is opposite A that is one form of mutation. This is not normal, it is not supposed to be this way.
The DNA controls the building of Ameino Acids or proteins, the way they do this is by taking three letters in a row, and making the thingy that combination requires. Example: TCA will make a different substance from AGT.
Another form of mutation is a frame-shift mutation, in which an extra letter is added or deleted. These types of mutations are almost always fatal. the reason being the whole sequence is messed up. Eg. assume this is the normal sequence: TCA GAC AGT (these will make three specific proteins) now add a C at the beginning. CTC AGA CAG T these groups are much different from the original, so much different proteins will be made.
A mutation is a deviation from the normal path. Error comes from the Latin word erro (erro -are -avi -atum) to wander. Thus it is an error. I maintain that I am not an error.
Also is there any new information being added in this mutation process? or is it simply being changed?
|
|
|
Post by JonathanDinsmore on May 13, 2004 16:28:13 GMT -5
Also what are known as fossil graveyards which are rather common in the fossil record strongly support the flood. In Cumberland Maryland there is the Cumberland Bone Cave. In this cave there are fossils of wolverines, grizzly bears, peccaries (a pig type thing), antelopes, ground hogs, rabbits, coyotes, beaver and muskrats. These creatures don’t live together. Some live in cold climates, some wet climates, some dry, some prairie and some forested. Well so what? All these fossils are found in the same strata ,not many different ones. Another interesting note is that some other caves in the same part of Maryland have no fossils at all. This and many many other similar "fossil graveyards" can only be explained by the flood.
|
|
|
Post by DavidKuntz on May 14, 2004 19:07:24 GMT -5
There are rock layers there that all of the scientific evidence shows to be many millions of years old. I think that "evidence" is a major misconception here... Evidence is a biased source... Anyone can just look at a rock and call it 50 million years old. They are gazillions of ways to test the age of the earth. Some say it is in the billions, some say it is in the thousands. Evolutionists mainly ignore the thousands, but they may be better theories! The problem with appealing to the flood though is that if such an event happened there would be dinosaurs of all types and time periods intermingled with modern animals EVERYwhere and in all strata. They just aren't. At all. If the flood had caused all this, there should be hundreds of instances of human bones jumbled with dinosaurs and other pre-human species. The indisputable fact is, however, that not one instance of this has ever been found. Using your logic, if evolution was to have occurred, then where is the missing link? Shouldn't there be more fossils showing an ape turning into a human then fossils of an ape? After all, after hundreds of years of observations there is no evidence of an ape turning closer to a human, so for evolution to be correct, it would take millions of years for such a change, resulting in at least of fossils of half-ape half-humans! Matt, you quoted a piece of evidence saying how many linking fossils have been shown, and say the creationists don't believe them. You know how biased for evolution the liberal news media is. They make mountains out of mole-hills! If the media makes front-page articles about hoaxes (Mars rock, Dinosaur bird fossil, for instance), don't you think that they would make a huge story if something "real" was found, no matter what creationists say? Does the media only print hoaxes and vigorously defend them but not bother print real finds?
|
|
|
Post by DavidKuntz on May 14, 2004 22:00:11 GMT -5
I have considered this topic, and have realized something most people don't think of:
What are the values of Old-Earth Creationism? What does it stand for? I asked myself this question, and came up with some startling answers.
The Old-Earth Creation theory is essentially trying to compromise human science and the Bible.
When it boils down to it, the Old-Earth Creation theory Tries to hold God accountable to worldly standards and reasoning. It tries to "fit" God's word into human philosophy. It says, "Science has proven God wrong, so we must think of a way to make Him right again." Think, would this even be an issue today in Christian circles had the secular scientific world agreed that there was a God? Would Christians be saying to non-believers, "We are all in agreement that there is a God, we just believe that he created the world in 6 billion years.?" Of course not!
The Old-Earth Creation theory believes this: "Modern Science has proven the world is 6 billion years old and that there is no God. But the Bible says there is a God who created the entire world." But instead of trusting the Bible in things we don't exactly understand, the theory continues with: "Therefore, God must have created the world 6 billion years ago and allowed it to evolve."
This is a very destructive theory! When the church holds God to the world's standards in Creation, it also starts holding God to other worldly standards. How do you think the new movement in the Church for "God loves everyone" and the "How can a loving God send anyone to Hell?" movement got into the church? Because people started holding God to man's standards.
Also, I think it is interesting that many believe that the Scope's trial was lost because the evolutionist got the creationist to admit "the earth might be billions of years old."
I would also like to make something very clear. I am attacking the Old-Earth Creationism theory, not the people who believe it!
|
|
|
Post by wowposter on Nov 14, 2008 1:07:53 GMT -5
|
|