Young Earth Creationist Has Bone to Pick With Evolutionists

Hi Nygdan,

Thanks for the links. Interesting articles about the lost planes. Have a read of this and tell me what you think. Seems there are a few theories regarding layering of ice cores.

www.answersingenesis.org...

agree that jtl's argument is poor, however, the nazis were not atheists. Communists, certainly, but hitler often referenced the creator and apparently was more of a christian. There were others in the party that were sort of new-agey/theosophistic pagan-revival types, but not many atheists that I am aware of. Certainly all the preists and ministers and deacons who were part of the party weren't athiests.

well, I guess that is where the term christianity falls down. Many claim to be christians yet their life style and actions are contrary to this, so ok I was wrong to say he was an athiest, yet he did his best to stamp out freedom of speech which tows the line with communism and athiesm.

As a matter of fact, hitler was a self confessed catholic -“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”

He would have fitted right in 700 years ago.

www.ugsg.gov to get you started.

[edit on 4/18/2005 by MCory1]

EDIT: I have no idea what happened to the rest of my post...there was a lot more here than just that, and the link was after the fact. I'm sorry if it seems out of place or snooty or something; I don't really remember what it was I wrote, or else I'd redo it...


[edit on 4/18/2005 by MCory1]

Originally posted by James the LesserAnyways, again, last I checked science was killing religon with what? 10 and 0 score?

As far as what? Producing technology and advancing science? Sure, science is better at science than religion. But no one is keeping score here. Religion and Science are seperate things. Faith is irrational yes, but its also unrefutable and doesn't get 'beaten' by science. If one has faith that the skydaddy's invisible hand moved the biotic precursors closer together in the 'warm pond' that life first arose in, well, how can science disprove it? By demonstrating that there is no requirement for any god to be involved? Science doesn't debunk religion, and religion can't debunk, or practice, science.

Also, keep in mind that, tommorrow, there might be a series of discoveries that completely turn the world of science upside down. Its happened before, it'll happen again. Science isn't able to get at The Truth, in the 'big philosophical/metaphysical' sense. At best, its theories are able to become better by increasing their 'truth likeness'. So science doesn't claim to represent The Truth, and its ideas might, infact, be completely wrong, even tho logically and obsercationally 'correct', whereas religion/philosophy/metaphysics claims to represent The Truth, even tho it too might be wrong. Science can be demonstrated to be wrong on somethibng (ie theories can be refuted), whereas religion dogma, because its beleived via faith, can't be refuted, it can only be not longer beleived in. There's no way to show that its wrong.
This is why its also, technically, incorrect to say that 'one beleives in evolution', even tho in normal human usage its understood that a 'darwinist/evolutionist who beleives in evolution' isn't bowing before an Idol of its Triune Godhead of Darwin/Wallace/Huxely, and that they don't appeal to St. Eldridge or the gnostic dichotomy of Gould/Dawkins. Lamarck's hypothesis was rejected because the evidence seems to refute it, not because of a Synod that codified a dogma, even tho the analogy is 'cute'.
This is also why many evolutionists, heck most I'd venture to say, are pious beleivers in their own little religion. Dawkins of course is something of an arch atheist, but I've never heard that Gould was a jewish apostate and most 'evolutionists' have the same beleifs as 'regular people' wrt religion.

shmick
hitler was a self confessed catholic

Yes, he was a christer, he had accepted jesus as his personal saviour, ie he was a christian. Doesn't matter that he did bad things, he can't be 'kicked out' as 'not a real christian'. He was a beleiver and follower of christ. Several christian groups would say that he's in heaven and, say, Gandhi, or hitler's victims, have been smote in the lake of fire, or are suffering permanent, holocaust like torture, in hell.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Thus, my starting assumptions assume significant climate instability post-Flood and rapid accumulation of snow and ice

Since they are assuming that the flood occured, then entire thing is fundamentally flawed. No flood, not relevance of flood scenarios.

If one starts with the uniformitarian paradigm, it is easy to see how the various methods appear to be corroborating

Since uniformatarianism appears to be correct, then its a good idea to start with it.

He would have fitted right in 700 years ago.

As would all the protestants who helped him in the holocaust. The people who did the holocaust are best described as christians, not catholics. Only some of them were catholics. In germany, the south, where hitler's from, is mainly catholic, but the north of the country is mainly protestant. Catholics and protestants helped the whole affair.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by Nygdan]

Well yeah, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness of your sins and you are allowed into heaven, according to christians, unless you are gay, female, black, jewish, or anything else but rich white heterosexual christian males.

Science can be right Nygdan, they are right about round earth, unlike religon. So science 1, religon 0.

Science can know that humans can't live to be 900+ years old, unlike religon. So science 2, religon 0.

Science knows that the earth isn't the center of the universe, unlike religon. So science 3, religon 0.

Science knows there is nothing in the clouds, well, except airplanes, birds, so forth, but according to religon clouds are heaven. So, science 4, religon 0.

Not enough water on this planet for a world flood. Sure enough to make most islands bye bye, and anyone within a hundred miles of the ocean coast bye bye, but the whole world? No. So science 5, religon 0.

According to religon disease is an act of god, while science knows it is germs, viruses, not supernatural. So science 6, religon 0.

It's not always easy to prove something in science, but when you do, we have proof. While all religon has is a book, written by the elite to control the masses. Also, science looks for the answer, while religon says it has the answer, and even though everything points to it being wrong, it is right because I have my head up my ass. Faith is nothing but a crutch for those to weak to walk on their own.

Oh, you a mod, can't vote you for WATS. Oh well, good job Nygdan, keep it up. Fun to argue with people who use their brain for more then breathing.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by James the Lesser]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Well yeah, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness of your sins and you are allowed into heaven, according to christians, unless you are gay, female, black, jewish, or anything else but rich white heterosexual christian males.

Oh come now, you know that's not the case.

Science can be right Nygdan, they are right about round earth, unlike religon. So science 1, religon 0.

Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." The original Hebrew for circle is "sphercity or roundness." Job also talks about the earth being a sphere. Also, psalm 103:12 says " as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us. " If the earth were flat, that would be a pretty short distance God removed our transgressions. However, if it's a sphere, east and west are infinitely distant.

Science can know that humans can't live to be 900+ years old, unlike religon. So science 2, religon 0.

Really? How can you be so sure about this? What science knows in that respect is that people are living longer and longer. In the dark ages, the average life span was about 30 years. However, before that, in roman times, it was closer to 60 years. Today it happens to be about 80 years old. If you were to go back to the dark ages and tell them that in 400 years their lifespan would almost be trippled, do you think they'd believe it? (Or care, for that matter...What good does that do them?!)

Science knows that the earth isn't the center of the universe, unlike religon. So science 3, religon 0.

That was Catholic doctrine from back in the day. I'd be very curious to see where in that oh so popular book it makes that claim.

Science knows there is nothing in the clouds, well, except airplanes, birds, so forth, but according to religon clouds are heaven. So, science 4, religon 0.

huh?

Not enough water on this planet for a world flood. Sure enough to make most islands bye bye, and anyone within a hundred miles of the ocean coast bye bye, but the whole world? No. So science 5, religon 0.

A major geothermal event could, potentially, heat up the water underground to the point of bursting from the ground as vapor, then raining back onto the ground. Over time, it would be reabsorbed into the empty cavities that would result, and there would not appear to be enough water on the surface to constitute a global flood. There is enough water to cover the earth if all that is underground were to come forth.

According to religon disease is an act of god, while science knows it is germs, viruses, not supernatural. So science 6, religon 0.

disease isn't an act of God. However, God does allow y'all to get sick. If it's so simple as bacteria and viruses, how is it that some people never get sick while others are sick all the time? Why do people get sick more often when they're depressed?

It's not always easy to prove something in science, but when you do, we have proof. While all religon has is a book, written by the elite to control the masses. Also, science looks for the answer, while religon says it has the answer, and even though everything points to it being wrong, it is right because I have my head up my ass. Faith is nothing but a crutch for those to weak to walk on their own.

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
-- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)

More often than not, science starts with an answer and tries to find facts that support the theory. As to the Bible being written by the elite, since when are a couple of fishermen, a tax collecter, and a historian (with terrible grammer) considered elite? I have yet to see anything, much less everything, point to my faith being wrong. As to that head problem, you may want to have that looked at; last I heard, head-in-ass-syndrome is easily treated with some medication and a chiropracter. The smell usually goes away after about 3 days, too.

Originally posted by junglejake
" If the earth were flat, that would be a pretty short distance God removed our transgressions. However, if it's a sphere, east and west are infinitely distant.

The terms for 'roundness' can also, apparently, simply mean round, like a circle. the terms are debateable. However, when satan tempts jesus, he takes him to a big mountain, and shows him everything in the world, all the kingdoms. This can't be done with a spherical earth.
The ancient greeks knew that the earth was round, not because of any faith, but because they demonstrated its curvature scientifically. THe ancient hebrews, apparently, didn't know it.

That was Catholic doctrine from back in the day. I'd be very curious to see where in that oh so popular book it makes that claim.

Precisely, it was catholic, ie christian, dogma, that the earth was the center of the universe. There weren't any groups of christians running around saying that the earth rotates about the sun.

A major geothermal event could, potentially, heat up the water underground to the point of bursting from the ground as vapor, then raining back onto the ground.

There is still not enough water.

Over time, it would be reabsorbed into the empty cavities that would result, and there would not appear to be enough water on the surface to constitute a global flood.

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a global flood, and rather the evidence seems to state that there never was one.

Yes, the christians never believed/killed thousands because the earth is flat, everyone knows that. Except they did, or imprisoned you for life if you said you were satans spawn and were wrong.

Also, a world flood means EVERYTHING, not just some, but all, including say, Himilaya(spelled wrong, I know) Mountain range with the tallest mountain in the world...... But there isn't, yes there is enough to cover alot of it, but all? Nope, and sorry, it says the world, not some of the world. Also, we can't even make a ship today large enough to fit 2 of every animal, not to mention the water animals for there is a funny thing with animals, they can't live except for their enviroment. A salt water animal dies in fresh, a fresh water dies in salt. So, did Noah have an aquarium for 2 of every water animal too?

And religon doesn't start off with an answer and look for an answer, it starts off with magic and fairy tales and finds loopholes in the evidence proving them wrong. "Well, he misspelled this word, so it is all wrong." or "Well, this part ain't right, throw it all out." But science is funny in a way, they don't have their heads shoved up their ass, they actually look for answers, and actually prove things, like round earth and not center of the universe.

There are two questions that are frequently asked regarding the Flood. The first one is, “If there really was a global flood, where did all that water go?” The second is, “How could there be a worldwide flood? We do not have enough water to cover the whole earth above the tallest mountains.

Both objections can be answered together: What if the mountains were not as high before the flood as they are today? Psalm 104:8 (NASV) says, “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down …” This appears to be at the end of the Flood. So we might conclude the waters ran off as the mountains rose and the valleys and sea basins deepened. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the mountains have risen (in fact, it appears that some are still doing so). Also, there is abundant evidence of catastrophic erosion – both in the form of “sheet” erosion resulting in broad, relatively flat plains or plateaus, and in the form of deep-cutting valley or canyon erosion.

Additionally, if you look carefully at a globe, you will find that nearly 75% of the earth is covered with water. Calculations show that if you could “flatten” all the mountains and make the earth smooth like a billiard ball, there would be enough water to cover the entire earth by 1-1/2 to 2 miles of water.

Originally posted by shmick25
Psalm 104:8 (NASV) says, “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down …” This appears to be at the end of the Flood.

Why is it said to be post-flood? I know its generally presented as such, might very well be, but I am not familiar with it.

So we might conclude the waters ran off as the mountains rose and the valleys and sea basins deepened. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the mountains have risen (in fact, it appears that some are still doing so).
Problem is, they rise over vast geological epochs, and aren't topped by flood deposits. Marine deposists, yes, sometimes, but not all the time and not a mish mash of stuff like would occur in a flood.

Calculations show that if you could “flatten” all the mountains and make the earth smooth
like a billiard ball, there would be enough water to cover the entire earth by 1-1/2 to 2 miles of water.

So this would be saying that there were no landfeatures greater than that no? If there are ~1600 meters per mile, and the himalyas average 6,000 meters, then they'd be well above sea level. Any feature thats current over 3200meters above sea level would've had to have been 'compressed', or rather de-compressed. But there is nothing that acts like this.
Also, if all the mountains are the same age, then why are the Appalachians so much more eroded than the rockies, for example. And why are mountains almost allways associated with tectonic margins and whatnot; meaning, mountains are often formed by having tectonic plates run into one another. That very process precludes a 6,000 year old young earth at least (YECism being the focus of the opening article).

I mean, sure, one can create any explanation, there's no doubting that. But none of the evidence supports this as acutally happening. Its a prime example of whats wrong with creationism. Its trying to sound scientific in the first place, and its just trying to explain nature in a way that allows a literal interpretation of the bible, its not performing actual science.