In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[Wuwei]

God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa.

Nobody believes that strawman. Mammals like dogs and cats evolved along separate lines from a common non-dog, non-cat ancestor.

I do, and I do not consider myself a nobody.

You are a nobody when it comes to science of evolution, since you use the bible as a starting point for the science of evolution.

 

[Wuwei]

There are simply many assumptions that evolutionists are taking for granted! Please see:
Radioactive Dating: Questions Answered

Your reference is saying the dating is still millions of years in the past no matter how you look at it. It still says that a 10 thousand year old earth is still way off by millions of years.

 

[LittleNipper]

Which was what exactly?

I have no idea. It's the general principles of evolution. Many non-believers in evolution think the scientists believe that man descended from apes. That is false. They both also descended from a common ancestor. The origins of the various ancestors are becoming clearer as more fossils are discovered.

The reality is that evolutionists do not believe man was a unique creation entirely separate from all other living things. I do not believe we have a common ancestor with apes. Apes are apes and humans were created in GOD's image. The ancsstory isn't becoming any clearer. If anything it is becoming more confused.

 

[LittleNipper]

God created KINDS.Dogs didn't become cats or visa versa.

Nobody believes that strawman. Mammals like dogs and cats evolved along separate lines from a common non-dog, non-cat ancestor.

I do, and I do not consider myself a nobody.

You are a nobody when it comes to science of evolution, since you use the bible as a starting point for the science of evolution.

And you are in serious trouble if GOD is a definite reality. I'd rather be a nobody to evolutionists and matter to GOD.

 

[LittleNipper]

There are simply many assumptions that evolutionists are taking for granted! Please see:
Radioactive Dating: Questions Answered

Your reference is saying the dating is still millions of years in the past no matter how you look at it. It still says that a 10 thousand year old earth is still way off by millions of years.

What the article eludes to is that Uniformitarians are clearly making an ASSUMPTION!
Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. In the case of argon-40, for example, it is simply assumed that none was in the rocks, such as volcanic lavas, when they erupted, flowed, and cooled. For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, and neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions 2 and 3).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you now understand that evolutionists begin from a premise the excludes GOD

100% false. Not only do I not inderstand that (you're a bit of a dishonest little fellow, arent you?), I also know that is utterly false . Science neither excludes nor includes gods. Where DO you get this nonsense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes.

This is complete bullshit. Scientists can easily test for that, because they know the half-lifes of those isotopes.

The things you are saying are lies and would get you laughed out of a relevant science course. And you should feel embarrassed not only for being a liar...but for not even understanding your own lies!

 

[Wuwei]

The reality is that evolutionists do not believe man was a unique creation entirely separate from all other living things. I do not believe we have a common ancestor with apes. Apes are apes and humans were created in GOD's image. The ancsstory isn't becoming any clearer. If anything it is becoming more confused.

Of course you don't believe the science. You believe the bible. Science journals that you probably don't read continue to find primate remains that make the ancestry clearer.

 

[Wuwei]

What the article eludes to is that Uniformitarians are clearly making an ASSUMPTION!
Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. In the case of argon-40, for example, it is simply assumed that none was in the rocks, such as volcanic lavas, when they erupted, flowed, and cooled. For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, and neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions 2 and 3).

When the same or similar ratios of daughter isotopes are found in various different areas, the confidence level of aging is improved. Meteorites and samples from the moon also show the same 4.7 billion years.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned on an ongoing basis since the 1960s. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.​

So you start out simply assuming that the bible sets the date of the universe to a few thousand years. I don't buy it. That is a worse scientific assumption than the countless studies that lead to the unfolding of the geologic past of the earth.

 

[LittleNipper]

What the article eludes to is that Uniformitarians are clearly making an ASSUMPTION!
Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. In the case of argon-40, for example, it is simply assumed that none was in the rocks, such as volcanic lavas, when they erupted, flowed, and cooled. For the other radioactive “clocks,” it is assumed that by analyzing multiple samples of a rock body, or unit, today it is possible to determine how much of the daughter isotopes (lead, strontium, and neodymium) were present when the rock formed (via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on unproven assumptions 2 and 3).

When the same or similar ratios of daughter isotopes are found in various different areas, the confidence level of aging is improved. Meteorites and samples from the moon also show the same 4.7 billion years.

Age of the Earth - Wikipedia

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned on an ongoing basis since the 1960s. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.​

So you start out simply assuming that the bible sets the date of the universe to a few thousand years. I don't buy it. That is a worse scientific assumption than the countless studies that lead to the unfolding of the geologic past of the earth.

GOD created the entire Universe in the same week so why would there be variations. Adam and Eve were created as fully grown fully communicative adults likely with navels! Why would He fabribage a Universe that doesn't seem to illustrate the eternality of GOD Himself!

 

[LittleNipper]

The reality is that evolutionists do not believe man was a unique creation entirely separate from all other living things. I do not believe we have a common ancestor with apes. Apes are apes and humans were created in GOD's image. The ancsstory isn't becoming any clearer. If anything it is becoming more confused.

Of course you don't believe the science. You believe the bible. Science journals that you probably don't read continue to find primate remains that make the ancestry clearer.

I don't believe YOUR SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They is too full of YOUR assumptions, values and opinions. GOD is Good!

 

[Wuwei]

GOD created the entire Universe in the same week so why would there be variations. Adam and Eve were created as fully grown fully communicative adults likely with navels! Why would He fabribage a Universe that doesn't seem to illustrate the eternality of GOD Himself!

I don't believe YOUR SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They is too full of YOUR assumptions, values and opinions. GOD is Good!

They are not my methods and assumptions. They were developed by countless scientists.

Your opening of this thread, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview."
refers to a series of scientific statements attempting to disprove an earth billions of years old.

I and others challenged those statements as narrow instances, sometimes incorrect, that do not hold up to the broader body of scientific discovery. Then you dismiss it all by saying you don't believe in scientific methods. God did it.

My question: Why did you bring science into your OP, if you are going to end it by saying you don't believe science of the last few centuries?

That seems disingenuous at best - your effort was a sham from the start.

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD created the entire Universe in the same week so why would there be variations. Adam and Eve were created as fully grown fully communicative adults likely with navels! Why would He fabribage a Universe that doesn't seem to illustrate the eternality of GOD Himself!

I don't believe YOUR SCIENTIFIC METHODS. They is too full of YOUR assumptions, values and opinions. GOD is Good!

They are not my methods and assumptions. They were developed by countless scientists.

Your opening of this thread, "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview."
refers to a series of scientific statements attempting to disprove an earth billions of years old.

I and others challenged those statements as narrow instances, sometimes incorrect, that do not hold up to the broader body of scientific discovery. Then you dismiss it all by saying you don't believe in scientific methods. God did it.

My question: Why did you bring science into your OP, if you are going to end it by saying you don't believe science of the last few centuries?

That seems disingenuous at best - your effort was a sham from the start.

For some unknown reason, you seen to equate secular theory with absolute fact, and opinions of evolutionist scientists as being scientific. Opinions are not fact (no eyewitnesses nor repeatability). A sham is something that is fabricated.with no truth intended. Such a view of evolutionists would be unfair; however, the reality is that secular opinion can be presently and openly discussed in public institution whereas "religious considerations are excluded solely because they invoke thoughts of a supreme being! This is unjust. I entirely get it that materialism must come into play; however, when a Christian scientist goes to extreme lengths to interpret data, while any evolutionist pretty much can say whatever satisfies a secular/no GOD position is highly dishonest and one sided.

 

[Wuwei]

For some unknown reason, you seen to equate secular theory with absolute fact, and opinions of evolutionist scientists as being scientific. Opinions are not fact (no eyewitnesses nor repeatability). A sham is something that is fabricated.with no truth intended. Such a view of evolutionists would be unfair; however, the reality is that secular opinion can be presently and openly discussed in public institution whereas "religious considerations are excluded solely because they invoke thoughts of a supreme being! This is unjust. I entirely get it that materialism must come into play; however, when a Christian scientist goes to extreme lengths to interpret data, while any evolutionist pretty much can say whatever satisfies a secular/no GOD position is highly dishonest and one sided.

When you say "secular theory" I assume you mean "science".

Hard science deals with mathematical models to codify the observed actions of nature. When theories in the hard and softer sciences seem successful they are never called “fact” as you say. You might call it “evidenced confidence.”

Religion might be called “faithful conviction”. That is not the way science works. Evolution theory is a science. Biblical considerations should be taught in religious classes, and undesired science should not interfere with those teachings.

The hard sciences are ubiquitous over all cultures. Religion is not. So when a particular religion wants their idea of a world view in a science class, that is not just bad science, it also dismisses all other religions and is one sided.

I apologize for calling your effort a sham. It is your reference which I think is the sham, but I don't think you can judge it from a science point of view because it lies outside the knowledge of most people. The sham is that the author was knowledgeable enough to know where he was cherry picking and stretching things. I already pointed out some of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Adam and Eve were created as fully grown fully communicative adults likely with navels!

How odd, considering there were already millions of humans on the planet. Seems like kind of a extraneous exercise...

 

[Old Rocks]

What is the purpose of this thread? To "prove" the earth is only a few thousand years old?

Seems that is the logic... The entire Universe is likely no more than about 10 thousand years old at the most.

So their argument here that almost every branch of science is wrong. Lotsa luck with that.

Science isn't wrong. It's the secular reasoning that is wrong because such assumptions begin with with an error of thought. That error is that there is no GOD. If GOD does exist HIS existence doesn't change a thing. Assumptions such as this are dangerously erroneous.

Now that is just stupid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For some unknown reason, you seen to equate secular theory with absolute fact

Wrong. Not "absolute" fact; more like, "There is no longer any reason to believe it is not fact, but, by all means, have a go at proving it isn't" fact.

"Absolute facts" are for you religious types, with your "unerring words" and "infallible gods" .

 

[LittleNipper]

For some unknown reason, you seen to equate secular theory with absolute fact, and opinions of evolutionist scientists as being scientific. Opinions are not fact (no eyewitnesses nor repeatability). A sham is something that is fabricated.with no truth intended. Such a view of evolutionists would be unfair; however, the reality is that secular opinion can be presently and openly discussed in public institution whereas "religious considerations are excluded solely because they invoke thoughts of a supreme being! This is unjust. I entirely get it that materialism must come into play; however, when a Christian scientist goes to extreme lengths to interpret data, while any evolutionist pretty much can say whatever satisfies a secular/no GOD position is highly dishonest and one sided.

When you say "secular theory" I assume you mean "science".

Hard science deals with mathematical models to codify the observed actions of nature. When theories in the hard and softer sciences seem successful they are never called “fact” as you say. You might call it “evidenced confidence.”

Religion might be called “faithful conviction”. That is not the way science works. Evolution theory is a science. Biblical considerations should be taught in religious classes, and undesired science should not interfere with those teachings.

The hard sciences are ubiquitous over all cultures. Religion is not. So when a particular religion wants their idea of a world view in a science class, that is not just bad science, it also dismisses all other religions and is one sided.

I apologize for calling your effort a sham. It is your reference which I think is the sham, but I don't think you can judge it from a science point of view because it lies outside the knowledge of most people. The sham is that the author was knowledgeable enough to know where he was cherry picking and stretching things. I already pointed out some of them.

Secular theory maybe referred to as science, but then one would have to say that Creationist theory is science... An idiot who believes that the earth is being carried around on a turtle and that the sun is taken across the sky in a chariot of gold and worships a manmade statue, pales in comparison with a circle hanging on nothing, and an invisible GOD. Christianity is classified as a "religion" by some ---- but all "religions" are not equal. Unlike science, a religion is only as good as it enlightens the world. I know of only one religion that does that; "Christianity" , and not all forms but that which embraced Rev. "Billy" Graham and agreed with the Bible 100%.

 

[LittleNipper]

Were Fossils Created Ex Nihilo During Creation Week?
by Dr. Terry Mortenson on October 6, 2006
Feedback: Were fossils created ex nihilo during Creation Week?
There is another possible explanation regarding fossils and Dinosaurs … I don’t see it as a lame attempt at trying to fit creationism into science … it is the very real possibility that the earth was created with age just as Adam was and that the fossils and the geological formations we see came into existence the day the earth was made.K.C., Dayton, Ohio, USA
Thanks for your suggestion on how to harmonize the fossil record with a young earth. Although this idea was advocated by a sincere Christian biologist in the 19th century [Phillip Gosse, Omphalos (London, 1857)], here are the reasons why we don’t think it is a good solution.

In Genesis 1–2 we are clearly told that God made a mature creation right from the beginning. On Day 1 God made the earth as a sphere in space covered with water. Though its surface was not in its final form until day 3, it was the earth, not some cloud of gas and dust slowly cooling and condensing by the laws of physics and chemistry. On Day 3 He made the various kinds of plants with fruit already on their branches. He did not create the plants as seeds or seedlings in the ground. On Day 4 the sun, moon and stars were fully formed and immediately functioned as time markers. On Day 5 and Day 6, He made the sea creatures, birds and land animals as mature adults instantly capable of obeying His command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the oceans, atmosphere and land. Also, on Day 6 God supernaturally created Adam and Eve as mature adults ready to communicate with God and each other, tend a garden and procreate.

If God had not made a mature, fully functioning creation, He would have needed to constantly use miracles to sustain and perfect His creation, which would not reflect well on either His power or His creativity or His wisdom. What would we think of an engineer who designed and made a machine that he constantly had to tinker with to make it work, to keep it functioning and to eventually be what he originally designed and intended it to be? He would certainly be considered a incompetent engineer.

We have just watched the Seeing eye and Hearing Ear videos online. Can we thank you for such excellent material, and encourage you to put make more of this material available. Thank you for the clear explanations of these beautifully incredible designs. What a wonderful God we have.

We continue to pray for you and support your efforts to honour the Lord in this work.

A.E., Guildford, Surrey, England

When God made this mature creation, it had an appearance of age that it did not actually have. Immediately after Adam’s creation he looked like he had been alive for perhaps 20 years, presumably the son of a mom and dad, when in fact he had only been made a few seconds earlier directly from dust. But God did not create a mature man (or plants or animals or heavenly bodies) for the purpose of making an appearance of age. Appearance of age was simply an inevitable characteristic of a mature, fully functioning creation. In fact, even if God had made the first plants as seeds in the ground or the first animals or man as fertilized eggs, it would still imply a history that never was (i.e., implying a tree that bore the seeds or parents that produced the fertilized eggs).

If we had been observers at the end of Creation Week, we would only be misled about the age of things if we ignored God’s own Word when it says how He made those creatures and how long it took (and if we forgot that they were the result of God’s supernatural activities instead of natural processes). So there was no deception on God’s part in making a mature creation.

But we get into difficulty if we say that during Creation Week God supernaturally created the thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks containing billions of impressions in the rocks that looked like (but were not) the fossilized remains of plants and animals (because those creatures would never have existed). God is neither a liar nor a deceiver (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), yet this scenario would involve God in deception for several reasons.

First, having impressions in the rocks that look like fossils of former living things is not needed for fully formed, mature rocks. Many sedimentary rocks have no fossils, yet are just as suitable to be used for construction material as rocks that contain fossils. So why make rocks with impressions that look like the fossilized remains of former living things?

Second, a great percentage of those fossils show evidence of disease (including cancer), arthritis, carnivorous activity and violent death (even being buried alive). Having such bizarre and grotesque impressions in rocks would certainly not make them better rocks. What conceivable purpose would God have for creating stones with impressions that look like the diseases we have today and which we and God call evil? It would seem to be deliberate deception on God’s part to make us think that those impressions in the rocks are the fossilized remains of animals that lived with disease and ate one another, when in fact those rocky impressions were simply His creations during His “very good” Creation Week.

Third, some of those impressions in the rocks are not completely stone, but are partially organic material virtually identical to the organic material in very similar living creatures today. What conceivable purpose would God have for creating such partially fossilized organic material? Again, it would appear to be deception.

Fourth, attributing the fossils to Creation Week leaves us with a Noachian Flood that produced no evidence of its occurrence, even though we have good scientific evidence that the Flood could and would have produced fossils and partially fossilized remains—just like the impressions we find in sedimentary rocks. The Flood would also have produced the kinds of sedimentation and erosion features that we see, which in some cases show that the sediments with their fossils were deposited in one place and then eroded and redeposited elsewhere. A year-long, global, catastrophic Flood, as described in Genesis 6–9, could not have occurred without leaving a massive amount of geological evidence. To attribute the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks to Creation Week would require us to treat the Flood as a myth, contrary to the way Genesis and the rest of the Bible present it as a literal, historical event. In Genesis 6:7 and 6:13, God said that the purpose of the Flood was to destroy all the land animals, birds and people and the surface of the earth itself (which thereby would also have destroyed many sea creatures). The geological record is exactly what we would expect from the Genesis Flood (though a few sediments and fossils would have been deposited in the pre-Flood and post-Flood periods). Please see our many articles on Noah’s Flood and its geological effects in our Get Answers section for more on this topic.

Due to the above reasons, we cannot attribute the fossils found in rock layers to the creative activity of God during His “very good” Creation Week.

Thanks again for writing.

Sincerely,
Dr. Terry Mortenson

 

[LittleNipper]

The Bible Stands



Full Text
1 The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
'Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.

Chorus:
The Bible stands tho' the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands,
The Bible stands.

2 The Bible stands like a mountain tow'ring
Far above the works of man;
Its truth by none ever was refuted,
And destroy it they never can. (Chorus)

3 The Bible stands and it will forever,
When the world has passed away;
By inspiration it has been given,
All its precepts I will obey. (Chorus)

4 The Bible stands every test we give it,
For its Author is divine;
By grace alone I will expect to live it,
And to prove it and make it mine. (Chorus)

Author: Haldor Lillenas
Born: November 19, 1885, Stord Island (near Bergen), Norway. Died: August 18, 1959, Aspen, Colorado. Buried: Floral Hills Cemetery, Kansas City, Missouri. Pseudonyms-- Virginia Rose Golden Laverne Gray Richard Hainsworth Rev. H. N. Lines Robert Whitmore Ferne Winters Lillenas emigrated to America as a child; his family settled first in South Dakota, then moved to Oregon in 1889. He attended Deets Pacific Bible College in Los Angeles, California (later renamed to Pasadena College); studied music at the Siegel-Myers School of Music in Chicago, Illinois