Proof God Created The Earth In One Day

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionist claim that for an hypothesis to be accepted, it must be testable. Yet, they accept that granite is caused by cooling of molten material over millions of years. It can't be tested. There seems to be a double standard. Anything creationists say is true, is not accepted. Because they claim it can not be tested; but they readily accept their o ...[text shortened]... act, even though they too are not testable.

P.S. I think Dasa called this cheating science.

they accept that granite is caused by cooling of molten material over millions of years. It can't be tested.

They CAN test such a hypothesis via indirect observations and logic. What barrier would be stopping them from doing this?
They can, for example, observe micro-crystal growth in samples of collected molten material ( which can be collected with a metal devise attached to a cable that is thrown into a lava hole -I have seen this done ) and cool it at various speeds such as either in seconds or in minutes and observe the resulting differences in micro-crystal growth in the samples and then extrapolate from that data what those micro-crystal growth would look like if it cooled over a few million years and then see if that is what is observed in granite.

Originally posted by humy

they accept that granite is caused by cooling of molten material over millions of years. It can't be tested.

They CAN test such a hypothesis via indirect observations and logic. What barrier would be stopping them from doing this?
They can, for example, observe micro-crystal growth in samples of collected molten material ( which can be colle ...[text shortened]... like if it cooled over a few million years and then see if that is what is observed in granite.

Would of, could of, should of, crapo. Bull, they couldn't do anything but put their heads up their arse.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolutionist claim that for an hypothesis to be accepted, it must be testable. Yet, they accept that granite is caused by cooling of molten material over millions of years. It can't be tested. There seems to be a double standard. Anything creationists say is true, is not accepted. Because they claim it can not be tested; but they readily accept their o ...[text shortened]... act, even though they too are not testable.

P.S. I think Dasa called this cheating science.

The fact that the theory of the formation of granite claims that it takes millions of years does not make it untestable . It is a clear and precise claim and can be tested against evidence , advances in physics geology etc may make it possible to make practical tests . It is the point about the clearly precise claim that makes it refutable and therefore different from religious claims which are unclear and fail any falsification test. Technical advances have supported and refuted scientific theory throughout history , as long as science makes precise testable claims and we accept theories fail we move on.

Originally posted by kaminsky
The fact that the theory of the formation of granite claims that it takes millions of years does not make it untestable . It is a clear and precise claim and can be tested against evidence , advances in physics geology etc may make it possible to make practical tests . It is the point about the clearly precise claim that makes it refutable and therefore di ...[text shortened]... story , as long as science makes precise testable claims and we accept theories fail we move on.

You are trying to mix truth with lies. It is true that science can test things, but they can't test everything. When they have created granite and a living thing then come back and then you might be able to teach me something. Right now, you are nothing but a child trying to teach a grownup something he knows more about than that child. I reccommend that the child go away and get an education and then come back with his head out of his arse.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Would of, could of, should of, crapo. Bull, they couldn't do anything but put their heads up their arse.

They CAN AND DO test such a hypotheses via indirect observations, extrapolation and logic.
They act and think vastly more intelligently than you do judging by the nonsenses in your posts.
They also know a lot more than you do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(Genesis 2:1-2 NASB)

[b]God completed all his work, including the creation of the Earth, in six days and rested on the seventh day.

In the beginnin ...[text shortened]... lled night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

(Genesis 1:1-5 NASB)[/b]

I read it like this:

God creates the heavens and the formless earth covered by water.
God hovers over the waters for an indeterminate time.
God creates light and separates it from darkness. Only now does Day 1 begin.

The 6 days of Gen 2 refer to completion of the work started at the creation of light. They don't specify how long any events before that took.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

(Genesis 2:1-2 NASB)

[b]God completed all his work, including the creation of the Earth, in six days and rested on the seventh day.

In the beginnin ...[text shortened]... lled night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

(Genesis 1:1-5 NASB)[/b]

Jaywill does not agree with you. Is he a New Atheist now?

The Holy Bible presents us with a creation week and each day consists of an evening (night time) and a morning (day time).

I believe a week is conveyed. But this week is a week of restoration, recovery, and further creation. This is a week of reconstruction. And we cannot really know too much about what preceeded.

There are other "gaps" in the Scipture. In Hebrews 11, the book of the heros of the faith, there is a gap. The entire 40 years of Israel's wandering in the wilderness is simply NOT accounted for as the writer traverses history of the faithful in the Old Testament.

For his own reasons, the wandering in the wilderness of Sinai for 40 years was simply ignored. It is as if the writer simply does not want to mention anything that happened in that period as being "by faith".

It is left out according to the priorities of the Holy Spirit. The same could be true for time between when God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning and the time the seer sees in his vision the earth in a state of void and emptiness. Like the 40 years of wandering omitted from Hebrews 11, the Holy Spirit could have just left out an interval not of immediate interest to His burden.

And Jaywill knocked ProperKnob for suggesting that evidence there never was a world wide flood conflicted with the Bible.

1. Genetics has revealed that the human population has never been as low as 8 people, contradicting the story of the flood.

2. There has never been a global flood.

Jawill replied: The phrase "global flood" does not occur in the Bible.

The first point is interesting. However, I doubt that it rises above theory or speculation (albeit well reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.

Originally posted by humy
They CAN AND DO test such a hypotheses via indirect observations, extrapolation and logic.
They act and think vastly more intelligently than you do judging by the nonsenses in your posts.
They also know a lot more than you do.

This so-called nonsense is from people who have more education, experience, and knowledge on these matters than you will ever how. The discovery that granite must have bee created almost instantly is from the work of Robert Gentry, PhD Nuclear Physics.

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/funstuff/na_gentry-bob-plutonium-halos.htm

The following people are modern day advocates of creation science who have one or more graduate degrees in a science discipline.

Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
Gerald E. Aardsma
Nathaniel Abraham
Gary L. Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology
E. Theo Agard Ph.D. Physics
Jim Allan Ph.D. Genetics
Mark Armitage M.S. Biology
Chris Ashcraft M.S. Biology, M.Ed
Steven Austin Ph.D. Geology
Geoff Barnard Ph.D
Don Batten Ph.D Agronomy and Horticultural Science
John Baumgardner Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
Michael Behe Ph.D. Biochemistry
Philip Bell Zoologist
David Bergman M.S. Electrical Engineering
Jerry Bergman Ph.D. Biology
Guy Berthault
Kimberly Berrine Ph.D. Microbiology and Immunology
Vladimir Betina
Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Biology
Andrew Bosanquet
Edward Boudreaux Ph.D. Chemistry
Gerardus Bouw Ph.D Astronomy
Stephen Boyd
David Boylan
Walter Bradley Ph.D. Materials Science
Patrick Briney Ph.D. Microbiology
Michael E. Brown Ph.D. Biology
Walt Brown Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering
Nancy Bryson Ph.D. Chemistry
John Byl Ph.D. in Astronomy
Linn Carothers
Robert Carter PhD in Marine Biology
David Catchpoole Ph.D. in Plant Physiology
Art Chadwick Ph.D. Biology
Eugene Chaffin Ph.D. Theoretical Physics
Choong-Kuk Chang
Donald Chittick Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
John Cimbala Ph.D. Aeronautics
Kenneth Cumming Ph.D. Biology
Harold Coffin Ph.D.
Bob Compton Ph.D. Physiology
Jack Cuozzo D.D.S.
Daniel Criswell Ph.D. Molecular Biology
William Curtis M.S. Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics, Th.D.
Malcolm Cutchins
Lionel Dahmer
Raymond Damadian M.D.
Chris Darnbrough
Nancy Darrall Ph.D. Botany
Bolton Davidheiser Ph.D. Zoology (genetics)
Percival Davis M.A. Zoology
Bryan Dawson Ph.D. Mathematics
Douglas Dean
Stephen Deckard M.S. Biology, Ph.D. Christian Education
Richard Deem M.S. Microbiology
William Dembski Ph.D. Mathematics
David DeWitt Ph.D Neuroscience
Donald DeYoung Ph.D. Physics
Geoff Downes Plant Physiologist
Ted Driggers Ph.D. Operations Research
Robert Eckel M.D.
André Eggen Ph.D. Animal and Molecular Genetics
Martin Ehde Ph.D. Mathematics
Dennis Englin M.Sc., Ed.D.
Raul Esperante-Caamano
Danny Faulkner Ph.D. Astronomy
Dennis Flanders M.S. Information Science, Ph.D. Christian Ed.
Carl Fliermans Ph.D. Biology
Dwain Ford Ph.D. Chemistry
Wayne Frair Ph.D. Biology
Robert Franks M.D.
Alan Galbraith Ph.D. Watershed Science
Robert Gentry Ph.D. Nuclear Physics
Paul Giem M.D.
Maciej Giertych Ph.D. Genetics
Alan Gillen
Duane Gish Ph.D. Biochemistry
Werner Gitt Doctorate in engineering
Guillermo Gonzales Ph.D. in Astronomy
D.B. Gower Ph.D. Biochemistry
Russell Grigg M.Sc. in Chemistry
Dianne Grocott MBBS.
Stephen Grocott Ph.D. Organometallic Chemistry
Donald Hamann
Charles Harrison
John Hartnett Ph.D. Physics
Mark Harwood Ph.D.
George Hawke Ph.D. Air Pollution Meteorology
Alan Hayward
Margaret Helder Ph.D. Botany
Tom Hennigan M.P.S. Environmental and Forest Biology
Harold Henry
Jonathan Henry
Joseph Henson
Robert Herrmann Ph.D. Mathematics
Andrew Hodge M.B., B.S., FRACS
Bodie Hodge MS Mechanical Engineering
Bill Hoesch MS Geology
Kelly Hollowell Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology
Ed Holroyd Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Bob Hosken Ph.D. Biochemistry
Sean Ho Ph.D. Computer Science
George Howe Ph.D. Botany
Neil Huber Physical Anthropologist
James Huggins Ph.D. Biology
Russell Humphreys Ph.D. Physics
Cornelius G. Hunter Ph.D. Biophysics
Max Hunter
Andrey A. Ivanov Ph.D. Physics
Yuri N. Ivanov Ph.D.
Tim Iverson M.A. Mathematics
Evan Jamieson Ph.D. Hydrometallurgy
George Javor Ph.D. Biochemistry
Thomas Griffith Vernon Jenkins B.Sc.Hons, M.Sc. Mining Engineering
Karen E. Jensen Ph.D. Biology
Pierre Gunnar Jerlström Ph.D. Molecular Biology
James J. Scofield Johnson
John Johnson Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Lance B. Johnson O.D.
Robert Bowie Johnson A.A.D. General Science
Renard Lee David Jolly M.S. Biology
Arthur Jones Ph.D. Biology
Jonathan Jones
Stephen E. Jones B.S. Health Administration
Raymond Jones
Ross Jones PhD Linguistics
Taylor B. Jones PhD Chemistry
R. D. Jonsonbaugh
Greg S. Jorgensen M.S. Engineering
Pierre Y. Julien Ph.D Geological Engineering
Valery Karpounin
Elaine Kennedy
Dean Kenyon Ph.D. Biophysics
John Klotz Ph.D Biology
Vladimir Kondalenko
Leonid Korochkin
John K.G. Kramer Ph.D. Biochemistry
Johan Kruger Ph.D. in Zoology (nematology)
Walter Lammerts Doctorate in Genetics
John Leslie
Lane Lester Ph.D. Genetics
Jean K. Lightner D.V.M.
Jason Lisle Ph.D. Astrophysics
Alan Love
Marvin Lubenow
Heinz Lycklama Ph.D Nuclear Physics
Ian Macreadie
Trevor Major M.Sc., M.A.
John Marcus Ph.D. Biochemistry
Ronald Curtis Marks Ph.D. Chemistry (Organic)
George Marshall Ph.D. Ophthalmic Science
Jobe Martin Th.M., D.M.D.
Joseph Mastropaolo Ph.D. Kinesiology
Ralph Matthews Ph.D. Radiation Chemistry
John McEwan Ph.D.
Andy McIntosh Ph.D. Aerodynamics
David Menton Ph.D. Biology
Angela Meyer Ph.D. Horticultural Science
John Meyer Ph.D. Zoology
Stephen Meyer Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science
Colin Mitchell Ph.D. Desert Terrain Geography
Robert Mitchell M.D., B.A. Cell Biology
John Moore
John Moreland D.D.S
John Morris Ph.D. Geological Engineering
Len Morris
Graeme Mortimer
Stanley Mumma
Jay Nelson O.D.
Hee-Choon No
Eric Norman
Michael Oard M.S. Atmospheric Science
Chris Osborne Ph.D. Biology
Bill Overn
Gary Parker M.S. in Biology/Physiology, Ed.D. in Biology
Johnson C. Philip Ph.D. Quantum-Nuclear Physics
Dave Phillips M.S. Physical Anthropology
Sean D. Pitman M.D.
Georgia Purdom Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Fazale Rana Ph.D. Chemistry
John Rankin Ph.D. Mathematical Physics
Walter ReMine M.S.
Ray Rempt Ph.D Physics
Mark Robertson M.Sc. in Hydrogeology
David Rogstad Ph.D. in Physics
Hugh Ross Ph.D. Astronomy
Ariel Roth Ph.D. Biology
Robert Russell Ph.D. Physics
John Sanford Ph.D. Plant Breeding and Genetics
Jonathan Sarfati Ph.D., F.M.
Siegfried Scherer Ph.D. Biology
Joachim Scheven
Gerald Schroeder
Giuseppe Sermonti Geneticist
G. Thomas Sharp
Frank Sherwin M.A. Zoology
Emil Silvestru Ph.D Geology
Andrew Snelling Ph.D. Geology
Lee Spencer Ph.D. Biology
Lee Spetner Ph.D. Physics
Timothy Standish Ph.D. Biology
Esther Su Ph.D. Biochemistry
Detschko Svilenov M.D., Ph.D.
Keith Swenson M.D.
Barry Tapp Ph.D. in Geology
Charles Thaxton Ph.D. Chemistry
Ker Thomson
Laurence Tisdall
Howard Van Till
Michael Todhunter Ph.D. Forest Genetics
Jeff Tomkins Ph.D. Genetics
Larry Vardiman Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
Walter Veith Ph.D. Zoology
Charles Voss Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Graeme Watmuff
Keith Wanser Ph.D. Physics
Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Biology
Monty White Ph.D. in Gas Kinetics
John Whitmore
Carl Wieland M.D.
Jay Wile Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry
Kurt Wise Ph.D. Geology
Bryant Wood
Todd Wood Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
R. L. Wysong D.V.M
Henry Zuill Ph.D. Biology
Jeffrey Zweerink Ph.D. Astrophysics
Robert L. Whitelaw M.S. Engineering science

http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_scientist

Originally posted by RJHinds
This so-called nonsense is from people who have more education, experience, and knowledge on these matters than you will ever how. The discovery that granite must have bee created almost instantly is from the work of Robert Gentry, PhD Nuclear Physics.

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/funstuff/na_gentry-bob-plutonium-halos.htm

The following people are ...[text shortened]... ert L. Whitelaw M.S. Engineering science

http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_scientist

That's just super. Now show us the peer reviewed papers they wrote refuting evolution or proving the older than Judaism 6 day creation story.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This so-called nonsense is from people who have more education, experience, and knowledge on these matters than you will ever how. The discovery that granite must have bee created almost instantly is from the work of Robert Gentry, PhD Nuclear Physics.

http://www.equalparenting-bc.ca/funstuff/na_gentry-bob-plutonium-halos.htm

The following people are ...[text shortened]... ert L. Whitelaw M.S. Engineering science

http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_scientist

If that is true, then they are all morons like yourself.
The vast majority of people who have “one or more graduate degrees in a science discipline” in this modern day of science and reason do not believe in such nonsense.
Scientists that believe in creationism only make up a crank minority of scientists that have no credibility as a result of their idiotic claims.

Here are some of the statistics on that:

http://truth-saves.com/evolution/qa-misconceptions.php

“....A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in creationism or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of one percent. ...” ( my emphasis)


and

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Approximately_what_percentage_of_recognized_scientists_DO_NOT_believe_in_Creation

So, in the United States, an undefined majority of scientists do not believe in God. In Britain, 86 percent of eminent scientists do not believe in God. Since some respondents were apparently agnostic (in Britain chose 3,4 or 5) and some who believe in God probably do not believe in creation, the total proportion who do not believe in creation must be somewhat higher than 86 percent. ( my emphasis)


Do you deny that the vast majority of scientists are NOT creationists despite these statistical facts?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I read it like this:

God creates the heavens and the formless earth covered by water.
God hovers over the waters for an indeterminate time.
God creates light and separates it from darkness. Only now does Day 1 begin.

The 6 days of Gen 2 refer to completion of the work started at the creation of light. They don't specify how long any events before that took.

You are reading it wrong. Let's look at it again.

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Genesis 2:1-2 NASB)

In the beginning of God's work He created the heavens and the Earth. (Genesis 1:1) Notice that Genesis 2:1-2 refers back to this work of creation in which it includes the heavens and the Earth. It states that by the seventh day God had completed all His work, so he just rested that final day.

So from Genesis 2 we know that the creation of the heavens and the Earth and light was all on the first day, because everything, including the Earth was completed by the beginning of the seventh day. There is no statement that there was any long time period between the creation of the heavens and the earth and light. It is all said to have happened in one day. Genesis 2 forbids any other interpretation.

[b]Everything, including the Earth, was created in six days and God rested on the seventh day.{/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following people are modern day advocates of creation science who have one or more graduate degrees in a science discipline.

If it is true that they are 'advocates of creation science' then they should be striped of their degrees because they haven't even learn't what the word 'science' means and have no business holding degrees in any science. Although I can understand the mathematicians not understanding science as science is not a prerequisite for maths.

Originally posted by finnegan
Jaywill does not agree with you. Is he a New Atheist now?

The Holy Bible presents us with a creation week and each day consists of an evening (night time) and a morning (day time).

[b]I believe a week is conveyed. But this week is a week of restoration, recovery, and further creation. This is a week of reconstruction. And we cannot really ll reasoned according to current levels of knowledge) to be a known science FACT.

[/b]Well, I hate to say it, but jaywill has been temporarily deceived into believing the false teachings of Hugh Ross without checking the truthfulness from the writings in the Holy Bible. A true believer must not compromise the clear teachings of the Holy Bible in order to agree with the teachings of sinful man. It is not a requirement for the Holy Bible to write "global flood" to indicate the flood waters covered the entire earth. This is what it says:

Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered.

(Genesis 7:18-20 NASB)

I think that is clear enough without explanation to say it was a worldwide flood if the waters covered the mountains everywhere under the heavens.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, it does.

No it doesn't......

"A true believer must not compromise the clear teachings of the Holy Bible in order to agree with the teachings of sinful man."

Wow! And you still believe in th trinity and have the nerve to say this? Lol