Creationism Q and A

Originally posted by JS357
YEC can predict everything non-YEC can predict.

Edit: Although it does so only after science bonks it over the head with the facts for many years, even centuries.

No, No it can't.


Evolutionary Predictions
Aron Ra: Classroom Educational Video.

YouTube

Originally posted by catstorm
Thank you. I can't explain my belief in God in a rational way. All I can say is that I am not ready to let go, as I guess the Creationists are not either. I am sincerely looking for the truth though, and not claiming that I own it. One thing I do know is that any nut can put any gibberish they want on youtube.

At least we all have one thing in common, we search for some kind of truth. I envy your faith, Atheism can be a lonely place.

Originally posted by catstorm
One more before I go. I believe God created, using a process of evolution (which is a proven process). Why is that not good enough? Creationists insist it was "Special" creation. What does that mean anyway? Some of what He creates is Special and some is Regular?

Well, you do not believe the Genesis account then. So you should not refer to yourself as a Christian.

Let me make sure I understand what you mean by evolution is a proven process. Some people have broken down evolution into microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution means small variations that have resulted over the years due to natural breeding. This we can agree is a proven process. Macroevolution means a large change that results in a different kind of creature. An example of this type of evolution would be a fish evolving into an amphibian or a reptile evolving into a bird. Macroevolution has not been proven, but only conjectured.

When I speak of evolution, I am referring to these large scale changes called macroevolution by some. So it is not good enough to just domonstrate that small variations occurring in animals, since everybody know that.

Special creation, as used by YEC's like myself, refers to God in the beginning "specially creating" everything Himself as indicated in Genesis one. I have never heard anyone use the term "regular creation" but I suppose that could be referred to as the variation that occurs through reproduction by all of God's specially created creatures. We are often spoken of as created by God, but we are actually a product of reproduction and the DNA program created in the original man and women by God.

The Genesis account of Creation is subject to interpretation. I do not recognize your right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. Microevolution is evolution. I thank God for the theistic evolutionist who explained the gospel to me. I would have laughed you and your kindergarten understanding of science out the door.

Originally posted by catstorm
Last,last question of the day. Why are Bible literalists ready to scrap the Sciences because of Genesis 1, but do not give their coats away because of Luke 3:11, don't believe the dancing mountains of Psalm 114 are literal and do not believe that the Last Supper wine is Christ's literal blood? Some of the Bible is literal and some is not. Who decides and by what authority? Instead of sending me to youtube, can someone please tell me?

Well, I don't consider myself an authority, so keep in mind I am just giving my opinions on here. If anyone disagrees with them, then I consider that they have different opinions and make my own decision as to which of us are more likely to be correct. That said, I will now give you my opinion on your questions.

In Luke 3:11 Jesus gives examples of how one might share with those in need. I believe that any Christian that I know of would share one of his coats with someone that had no coat when it is very cold and he saw the need of the other person.

All the psalms are poetic songs, so it should be general knowledge that songs and poetry can not always be taken literally because they are for praise and entertainment, and NOT meant to be taken as an exact narrative of events. So for Psalm 114 any one with common sense knows that people dance, not mountains.

Now the Roman Catholic Church do teach that the Last Supper wine turns to Christ's literal blood when one takes it within their body. Most, if not all, Protestant churches teach that Jesus meant to teach his disciples the true meaning of the Passover meal that the Jews had been observing from the time of Moses. He used the symbols of the bread and wine to represent his body and blood that would be sacrificed for them as the true Lamb of God. It appears they still did not understand until after His resurrection.

I believe each of us can decide, if we will accept the authority of the Holy Spirit as we study the scripture.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by catstorm
The Genesis account of Creation is subject to interpretation. I do not recognize your right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. Microevolution is evolution. I thank God for the theistic evolutionist who explained the gospel to me. I would have laughed you and your kindergarten understanding of science out the door.

I understand your limited understanding of the evolution controvery and you can laugh all you want. Laughing is considered good for you by most scientist too. I do not consider all science bogus as you seem to think. Good luck. 😏

By the way, Christ referred to the Genesis account of creation in the beginning and made no statement contradicting it. So I believe it is safe to say He believed in it; and if you don't, then I believe I am safe to say you are not a Christian, even though you may profess to be one.

In case someone has a question on the age of the earth here is some evidence for a created earth.

Evidence for a Young Earth

YouTube

The Death of Darwinism: The New Evolutionism - Soft Tissue Dinosaurs, etc. - Dr. G. Charles Jackson

YouTube

Originally posted by JS357
YEC can predict everything non-YEC can predict.

Edit: Although it does so only after science bonks it over the head with the facts for many years, even centuries.

Well, I would LOVE to see the prediction as to how long the Grand Canyon will last or what it will look like in ANOTHER 6000 years. You would have to figure the GC would double in size or some such rot if YEC was correct.

Another thing they would have to figure out about JUST the GC: Why it has not changed in recorded history. Even before photography there were artists and even before that there were native Americans. They all show practically no change from those times to now, yet we are supposed to believe it all happened during the flood.

It's kind of like the Soviet Empire. They could not predict the past.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, I would LOVE to see the prediction as to how long the Grand Canyon will last or what it will look like in ANOTHER 6000 years. You would have to figure the GC would double in size or some such rot if YEC was correct.

Another thing they would have to figure out about JUST the GC: Why it has not changed in recorded history. Even before photography th ...[text shortened]... ened during the flood.

It's kind of like the Soviet Empire. They could not predict the past.

We YECs believe the Grand Canyon was formed very fast. You should know that already by the information on how those canyons formed near Mount St Helens after it erupted. We don't believe it got that way gradually like the people who believe in an old earth. So, no we do NOT have to figure the GC would double in size or some such rot if YEC was correct.

The reason there has been no change in the Grand Canyon in recorded history is that there has not been any great catastrophes around there in recorded history to cause much change in the Grand Canyon, except the Biblical worldwide flood about 4300 years ago.

It is also like you because you can not predict the past. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
We YECs believe the Grand Canyon was formed very fast. You should know that already by the information on how those canyons formed near Mount St Helens after it erupted. We don't believe it got that way gradually like the people who believe in an old earth. So, no we do NOT have to figure the GC would double in size or some such rot if YEC was correct.
...[text shortened]... wide flood about 4300 years ago.

It is also like you because you can not predict the past. 😏

No, that is the the bulwark of the Soviet empire. The thing you don't want to account for in your so-called flood is the fact, JACK, that there is underneath the GC, MILES of sediment that never came from ANY flood but from billions of years of ocean sediment buildup.

I would LOVE to see you squirm if a time machine was invented and went into the past, say one picture every 100 years over some spot of the GC and go back to when it was REALLY made, around 10 million years ago.

At that rate, you could generate a movie by playing the images from the deep past to the present time and have nearly an hour long movie to watch the whole thing be eaten out bit by bit by the Colorado river.

It would also show NO stupid world wide flood. If you went back about 700 MILLION years ago you might find the Ice age Earth where most of the Earth was covered in Ice but that is another story.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, that is the the bulwark of the Soviet empire. The thing you don't want to account for in your so-called flood is the fact, JACK, that there is underneath the GC, MILES of sediment that never came from ANY flood but from billions of years of ocean sediment buildup.

I would LOVE to see you squirm if a time machine was invented and went into the past, ...[text shortened]... ght find the Ice age Earth where most of the Earth was covered in Ice but that is another story.

We know now that the Colorado River could never have carved out the Grand Canyon over millions or billions of years. That was a stupid idea to begin with. Why anyone fell for that scam I don't understand. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
We know now that the Colorado River could never have carved out the Grand Canyon over millions or billions of years. That was a stupid idea to begin with. Why anyone fell for that scam I don't understand. 😏

Just to clarify...

Are you saying that given millions [the actual estimates are in the tens of millions,
certainly not billions] of years the river wouldn't be able to carve out the canyon?


Or are you just disputing that the world has been around for millions of years?


Because what you just posted sounds like the first more than the latter, which is
dumber than even your usual posts.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just to clarify...

Are you saying that given millions [the actual estimates are in the tens of millions,
certainly not billions] of years the river wouldn't be able to carve out the canyon?


Or are you just disputing that the world has been around for millions of years?


Because what you just posted sounds like the first more than the latter, which is
dumber than even your usual posts.

I am disputing both.

The Grand Canyon Formation - Alternate Theories

The true cause of the Grand Canyon is still hotly debated among geologists, and all recognize there's no solid answer.

In his video Grand Canyon, part of the Great National Parks series, Dan Goldblatt refers to a Navajo legend about the formation of Grand Canyon. In the full story, it rained in the land for many days. It rained so much that waters rose high over the tops of the mountains. After the rain stopped, whatever was holding back the waters broke, and the waters rushed down and carved out the canyon.

Young Earth geologists like Steve Austin believe that these great lakes were leftover from the Flood of Noah. When the natural dam that held them broke, the waters ripped through the Kaibab Plateau with a fury. If the lakes were quite large - three times the size of Lake Michigan, by some estimates - the erosion would not have had to take the millions of years that geologists would have expected.

http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1789/print/

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am disputing both.

The Grand Canyon Formation - Alternate Theories

The true cause of the Grand Canyon is still hotly debated among geologists, and all recognize there's no solid answer.

In his video Grand Canyon, part of the Great National Parks series, Dan Goldblatt refers to a Navajo legend about the formation of Grand Canyon. In the ful ...[text shortened]... t geologists would have expected.

http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1789/print/

So once again we have to point out that REAL geologists know when fast waters hit and when slow waters slowly grind down land to be a canyon.

Fast water leaves obvious traces and your willful ignorance knows no bounds.

If you dare, read this:

http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Ocean-Basins-to-Volcanoes/Stream-and-River.html

This is what geologists KNOW. Not what some bible addled young Earth geologist wants to twist into his biased version of what really happened to the GC.

You really step into a mound of shyte every time you post. Jumping on ANYTHING vaguely scientific sounding in the hopes that you can convince people with no critical thinking ability your twisted world view is correct.

The problem is, you are on a CHESS site. This is a site of thinking people. You should really be harping your twisted wares on say, a sewing circle or maybe a fishing site.

Maybe THEY would be susceptible to your devil addled dreams.