The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Soul winner, I must say I'm disappointed in you. You said that atheism is illogical because atheists must believe that the universe came from nothing.

Well I didn't say it quite like that. I said that the scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. So if it has a beginning then it must have a beginner. Then I asked how it could have came about. Was it by nothing or a creator? To chose nothing is the least plausible option because we know that nothing comes from nothing. Does anybody here believe that anything can come from nothing? Maybe it can but if the choice between hypothesis 1) A Creator or 2) Nothing had to be made choosing 2) is obviously the lease plausible. As far as the standard big band model goes these are the only options open. So if the universe has a beginning and a beginner then atheism is irrational.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I corrected you by saying that I don't know how the universe came into being, that it could have been some kind of force but that I take issue with ascribing human characteristics to the force the way people used to do for lightning.

Who the heck ever ascribed human characteristics to lightning?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And instead of dealing with my response you've ignored it and restated that the only options are a creator or nothing,

Ok then given the Standard Big Bang model what other options have we got? The super particle? Do you think that it is rational to believe that everything came about from a hypothetical super particle? The fact that you admit that you don't know is no reason to throw stones at others who are willing to go out on limb and dare to believe that the God they already believe exists did it. What is so wrong about postulating that God did it, especially in the absence of any reasonable alternative? Saying that we simply don't know is not a good replacement for the God hypothesis, you need more than that.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

and you've come out with the greatest non-sequiter known to man: "the universe had a creator, therefore the bible is true". I expected more from yourself tbh

I did add a :pac: to that bit in fairness. Stop being so sensitive Sam

munsterdevil

J C wrote: »

....BUT we are NOT comparing Thor with lightning here!!!
Lightning has an obvious materialistic explantion ... and the atmosphere and the Sun have an obvious and sufficient energy capacity to produce lightning!!!

...we are comparing an Omnipotent and an Omniscient God with a PARTICLE ... as the source of the known Universe!!!!:pac::):D

....as Borat might say "At-heists have brain size of Hens teeth":pac::):D

What is it with you and Borat? Why oh why do you continuously use lame attempts of "humour" and smileys in your argument?

J C

lugha wrote: »

Well a lot of folks said a lot of things on this matter but my overall impression was that there is a distinction between what the Godless ones wrote and what the believers read.
Loosely, my impression was that they wrote that they had particular concerns about an individual for a post because he expressed views which called into question his suitability for this post (I have offered no opinion myself on this point). The believers seem to read this and interpreted it as saying that no Christian was suitable for this post. No doubt your synopsis would differ somewhat?

...well, if a Theistic Evolutionist and the Leader of the Human Genome Project isn't suitable ... WHAT OTHER TYPE of Christian WOULD be suitable ????

....a Young Earth Creationist....perhaps???

J C

munsterdevil wrote: »

What is it with you and Borat? Why oh why do you continuously use lame attempts of "humour" and smileys in your argument?

...guys just wanta have FUN!!!!:D:)

munsterdevil

J C wrote: »

...guys just wanta have FUN!!!!:D:)

Fair enough we won't deprive you of that, but going back to my earlier question, where is your evidence for a 10,000 year old Earth?

J C

munsterdevil wrote: »

How can you confirm? have you sound evidence that it is 10,00 years old?

Or do you just rely on putting smileys at the end of every sentence to gloss over your "simplistic" answers?

...here are 14 phenomena that point towards a Young Earth:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

philologos

munsterdevil wrote: »

1. Why go to so much trouble in the intracies in making the universe.

How is this an argument against God's existence? One could ask why did God create the universe at all? I would say to make a meaningful creation that would become His honour and His splendour.

munsterdevil wrote: »

2. The universe is estimated to be around 15 billion years old, and the earth 5 billion (I think, so correct me if I'm wrong), so why not make the a developed earth the first day.

How is this an argument against God's existence? I think it is quite impressive that God created everything at all let alone the duration of time it took. As for the "developed" world argument, if the world is 4.3 billion years old it would have been in existence for 4.3 billion years. That doesn't mean that it took 4.3 billion years to create.

munsterdevil wrote: »

3. It took billions of years for life to appear on earth and it was only a few million years ago that the first recognisable humanoid species first appeared, so why didn't god just put humans on earth the first day, why all the waiting and waiting for development.

Again, how is this an argument against God? You have issue with "how" God created the world, than the notion that God created the world at all I take it?

munsterdevil wrote: »

4. Why were the Israelites the first the first to learn of the Christian Judeo God, when they had no written culture, when for example plenty of cultures in Asia had a written culture thousands of years before them.

I would argue that the written culture of the Israelites was of God. God called Abram, and Sarai out of Mesopotamia (Genesis 12) and told Abram that he would form a great nation, and indeed he would make his descendants the kings of many great nations. Whoever would curse the people of Abraham would be cursed, and whoever blessed them would be blessed. Abraham then begot Isaac (Yitzak), which means "he will laugh" in reference to the age of both Sarah and Abraham when having Isaac. Then the servant of Abraham found Isaac a wife amongst his fathers people, Rebecca. Rebecca and Isaac begot Esau and Jacob. Esau traded his birthright to Jacob. Jacob became the father of the Israelites, and had twelve sons, Zebulun, Napthali, Gad, Dan, Asher, Issachar, Joseph, Levi, Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and Reuben. To the descendants of these 12 men Moses offered plots of land in Israel and in Gilead.

You talk about other written cultures. However for the Israelites God made for them their written culture, God revealed to them a Covenant, and a Law. God spoke to them through prophets, until the point God would reveal His glory from Jerusalem to the rest of the Gentile world.

philologos

munsterdevil wrote: »

But how can you rely on such books that were written circa 50 years after Jesus' death?

All the books are a complete word of mouth, and after 50 years were largely fictionalized accounts of Jesus' life...

Considering Paul the Apostle died in 64AD, these books had to be written before then. The first writings from Paul were written in 55AD which if you add from the year of Jesus death is a lot less than 50 years.

Why do I trust these books? Rather simple, all canonical Christian writings come in a reasonable date space from Jesus' death, not only that they are all written in Koine Greek, they are consistent with eachother, and finally we know factually that all these texts were used from the Church Fathers from the first century onwards to the present day.

We don't just accept the Biblical text blindly as a Christian community. Theological study also helps in why we believe what we do.

Whereas in comparison you call them "fictionalised accounts" without any form of backing. I know which is more convincing to me

munsterdevil

Jakkass wrote: »

How is this an argument against God's existence? One could ask why did God create the universe at all? I would say to make a meaningful creation that would become His honour and His splendour.

What about the countless failed galaxies, dead planets that will never see an atmosphere let alone life, a big massive universe that is largley (from what we know unable to support life, This to me is not the work of wonder.

How is this an argument against God's existence? I think it is quite impressive that God created everything at all let alone the duration of time it took. As for the "developed" world argument, if the world is 4.3 billion years old it would have been in existence for 4.3 billion years. That doesn't mean that it took 4.3 billion years to create.

I never said it took 4.3 billion years for it to create, my point is why didn't god just create the earth straight away? For such a glorious God, he seems to take a quite a long time to do things.



Again, how is this an argument against God? You have issue with "how" God created the world, than the notion that God created the world at all I take it?

My point here is that why didn't human life appear before it did? why the waiting, why all the prehistoric creatures when there was no humanoid creatures to withness them.


I would argue that the written culture of the Israelites was of God. God called Abram, and Sarai out of Mesopotamia (Genesis 12) and told Abram that he would form a great nation, and indeed he would make his descendants the kings of many great nations. Whoever would curse the people of Abraham would be cursed, and whoever blessed them would be blessed. Abraham then begot Isaac (Yitzak), which means "he will laugh" in reference to the age of both Sarah and Abraham when having Isaac. Then the servant of Abraham found Isaac a wife amongst his fathers people, Rebecca. Rebecca and Isaac begot Esau and Jacob. Esau traded his birthright to Jacob. Jacob became the father of the Israelites, and had twelve sons, Zebulun, Napthali, Gad, Dan, Asher, Issachar, Joseph, Levi, Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, and Reuben. To the descendants of these 12 men Moses offered plots of land in Israel and in Gilead.

You talk about other written cultures. However for the Israelites God made for them their written culture, God revealed to them a Covenant, and a Law. God spoke to them through prophets, until the point God would reveal His glory from Jerusalem to the rest of the Gentile world.

Why wait so long to introduce his son to humankind? Homosapiens were around at least 200,000 years before Jesus came.

Post edit aww crap, I messed up the quoting, but I think you can see my replies anyway. Either way apologies for the mess!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...here are 14 phenomena that point towards a Young Earth:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

LOL :rolleyes:

Your definition of "Young" is a bit funny there JC, considering the dates in that article (even including the points that are down right lies) range between 7,000 and 62,000,000 years.

Again this is more Creationists nonsense, trying to show the scientists are wrong rather than bothering to try and show you guys are right.

munsterdevil

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering Paul the Apostle died in 64AD, these books had to be written before then. The first writings from Paul were written in 55AD which if you add from the year of Jesus death is a lot less than 50 years.

Why do I trust these books? Rather simple, all canonical Christian writings come in a reasonable date space from Jesus' death, not only that they are all written in Koine Greek, they are consistent with eachother, and finally we know factually that all these texts were used from the Church Fathers from the first century onwards to the present day.

We don't just accept the Biblical text blindly as a Christian community. Theological study also helps in why we believe what we do.

Whereas in comparison you call them "fictionalised accounts" without any form of backing. I know which is more convincing to me

But only one of the Gospels mention the ressurection, for such an important event, wouldn't you think they would all mention it?

The reason I believe them to be fiction is that if I wrote of a person that performed miracles, came back from the dead, and saved all our sins, and a few hundred years from now would people believe it? I doubt it...

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's interesting how the further we get from the discussion, we have to rely on philosophy rather than science to ponder questions like these.

Philosophy has a big part in science. Without the originating ideas behind what we think is happening we have no hypotheses to test. But if you want your hypothesis to ever be anything more than a hypothesis, you need the scientific method. And if your hypothesis can never be tested by the scientific method, it will remain always and forever just another hypothesis, as potentially valid as any other

philologos

munsterdevil wrote: »

But only one of the Gospels mention the ressurection, for such an important event, wouldn't you think they would all mention it?

All 4 of the Gospels mention the Resurrection. The Resurrection is also mentioned numerous of times in other New Testament writings.

I'll let you read these passages for yourself:
Matthew 28:1-10
Mark 16:1-8
Luke 24:1-12
John 20:1-10

Not only do all 4 Gospels mention the Resurrection of Jesus, they also mention conversations and events with Jesus after He rose from the dead.

Christianity is based on the Resurrection if there is no Resurrection there is no truth in our faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).

In the book of Romans it is written that through baptism we are dead to our sins, and we gain new life because we are baptised into Jesus' death and Resurrection (Romans 6:1-12).

Can I just ask you:
Have you read the Bible?

munsterdevil wrote: »

The reason I believe them to be fiction is that if I wrote of a person that performed miracles, came back from the dead, and saved all our sins, and a few hundred years from now would people believe it? I doubt it...

Hang on! You say the Resurrection is only in one Gospel when it is in all four. Then you say, that you regard it as fiction because of miracles. Make up your mind.

If God created the world, I don't find it too hard that God can carry out miracles.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL :rolleyes:

Your definition of "Young" is a bit funny there JC, considering the dates in that article (even including the points that are down right lies) range between 7,000 and 62,000,000 years.

Again this is more Creationists nonsense, trying to show the scientists are wrong rather than bothering to try and show you guys are right.

...the POINT is that they are MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ages and they are a lot less that the 'billions of years' that Evolutionists confuse themselves with.

If you had read the Abstract from the Paper you would have gotten the explanation:-

"The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale."

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL :rolleyes:

Your definition of "Young" is a bit funny there JC, considering the dates in that article (even including the points that are down right lies) range between 7,000 and 62,000,000 years.

Again this is more Creationists nonsense, trying to show the scientists are wrong rather than bothering to try and show you guys are right.

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

...here are 14 phenomena that point towards a Young Earth:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

I read his book Starlight and Time. I could follow it up until Apendix 2. Frick!!! :eek::):P;):rolleyes::pac:;):(

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well I didn't say it quite like that. I said that the scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. So if it has a beginning then it must have a beginner. Then I asked how it could have came about. Was it by nothing or a creator?

No, you are again anthropomorphising something for no reason. Not everything that begins something can be called a beginner. A snowflake begins an avalanche but you wouldn't call it a "beginner". A force of some kind does not have to be intelligent and have other randomly ascribed human characteristics in order to be what we in our limited understanding consider eternal

Soul Winner wrote: »

To chose nothing is the least plausible option because we know that nothing comes from nothing.

Does anybody here believe that anything can come from nothing? Maybe it can but if the choice between hypothesis 1) A Creator or 2) Nothing had to be made choosing 2) is obviously the lease plausible. As far as the standard big band model goes these are the only options open. So if the universe has a beginning and a beginner then atheism is irrational.

You're just repeating for a third time the same false dichotomy that I've already tried to correct you on. No one here is saying the universe came from nothing. The options are not God or nothing. I have no idea how the universe came into being.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who the heck ever ascribed human characteristics to lightning?

Thor

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then given the Standard Big Bang model what other options have we got? The super particle? Do you think that it is rational to believe that everything came about from a hypothetical super particle? The fact that you admit that you don't know is no reason to throw stones at others who are willing to go out on limb and dare to believe that the God they already believe exists did it. What is so wrong about postulating that God did it, especially in the absence of any reasonable alternative? Saying that we simply don't know is not a good replacement for the God hypothesis, you need more than that.

When you don't know, that is the only reasonable answer you can give. Even if you conclusively prove every other hypothesis wrong that does not mean your one is right. The simple fact is that no one knows how the universe came into being. That might not be satisfying to you but that does not give you a licence to make up whatever you want and declare it to be the truth. By all means put forward the God hypothesis and it will be considered just like all others but if you want to assert that your hypothesis is true, that your particular version of God created the universe (and not a generic creator), you will have to prove it using the scientific method just like everyone else. Until then it is just a hypothesis and it is logically unsound to discount all other possibilities, past present and future, and declare it to be true

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well I didn't say it quite like that. I said that the scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. So if it has a beginning then it must have a beginner.

Thats a big jump, why must there be a beginner (ie a consciousness) and not just a beginning?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Then I asked how it could have came about. Was it by nothing or a creator? To chose nothing is the least plausible option because we know that nothing comes from nothing. Does anybody here believe that anything can come from nothing? Maybe it can but if the choice between hypothesis 1) A Creator or 2) Nothing had to be made choosing 2) is obviously the lease plausible.

Well of course nothing is probably the least plausible, if you set up such a ridiculous false dichtomy as "God or nothing"

Soul Winner wrote: »

As far as the standard big band model goes these are the only options open.

Source? Because as far as i knew, the current model just says there was a primordial hot and dense initial condition, which is not exactly nothing, just nothing which can described in terms of anything that exists in this universe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if the universe has a beginning and a beginner then atheism is irrational.

Even then, no not really. Even if your assumption is true, there is nothing to say if that beginner is actually god. For all you know, that beginner could be someone in another universe who did something to begin this one.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who the heck ever ascribed human characteristics to lightning?

Much the same people who ascribe human characteristics to the creation of the universe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then given the Standard Big Bang model what other options have we got?

I'm going to go with what I said above, some primordial hot and dense initial condition which cant be described in terms of anything form this universe. At least until I actually see some evidense to the contrary that is.

Soul Winner wrote: »

The super particle? Do you think that it is rational to believe that everything came about from a hypothetical super particle?

If we gave that super particle a beard and called it god then would like it?

Soul Winner wrote: »

The fact that you admit that you don't know is no reason to throw stones at others who are willing to go out on limb and dare to believe that the God they already believe exists did it.

It is if their reasoning is poor (or just non-existent)

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is so wrong about postulating that God did it, especially in the absence of any reasonable alternative? Saying that we simply don't know is not a good replacement for the God hypothesis, you need more than that.

"God did it" is an unfalsifiable position. "We dont know yet" is not. One will lead you to searching out new evidence to try and find out what we dont know yet, the other kills all further enquiry (whether its right or wrong). Dont forget that humans have attributed many things to be caused by god that we now know aren't, if it wasn't for that first person who stood up and said "god did it" isn'y good enough for me, we would still probably be living in caves. We have accomplished so much by not attributing things to god simply because we dont know the answers yet and searching might take more than five minutes, that I don't know why we should ever do so again.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

It's all been refuted over the last 1100-and-whatever pages.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

um... I'm pretty sure most of those 14 have come up before in thread, and been refuted time and again... the come back tends to be "LOL LOL LOL :rolleyes::D :rolleyes: :eek::eek::pac::pac: Something you don't even claim is statistically impossible!!!" rather than any sort of sensible rebuttal.

J C... unless I've missed something I've not got a response back from you on my last spontaneous/not spontaneous question... a yes or no would do, I promise it's going somewhere.

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

Probably, if it wasn't for JC just bringing it up again 6-12 months later.
Besides pointing out that his own articles give age ranges of between 7,000-62,000,000 years(when 7,000 years is 1,000 years older than what he claims the earth is)seems like pretty good refuting to me.

munsterdevil

Jakass Wrote:

Not only do all 4 Gospels mention the Resurrection of Jesus, they also mention conversations and events with Jesus after He rose from the dead.

Christianity is based on the Resurrection if there is no Resurrection there is no truth in our faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).

In the book of Romans it is written that through baptism we are dead to our sins, and we gain new life because we are baptised into Jesus' death and Resurrection (Romans 6:1-12).

You are right, I apologise I just got a bit muddled, (my Biblical Studies are a bit rusty ti say the least, and that is being genuine.)

It's the crucifixion part I meant to say, yes they all mention it, but John is the only one that goes into it in detail, why didn't the rest for such an important event. (I'm not trying to antagonise you with this statement, just curious).

Hang on! You say the Resurrection is only in one Gospel when it is in all four. Then you say, that you regard it as fiction because of miracles. Make up your mind.

If God created the world, I don't find it too hard that God can carry out miracles.

Yes I do regard it as fiction because of the far fetched events, of which we have no evidence of.

And what miracles would they be, the ones from the Bible or present day ones?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well I didn't say it quite like that. I said that the scientific evidence points to the universe having a beginning. So if it has a beginning then it must have a beginner. Then I asked how it could have came about. Was it by nothing or a creator? To chose nothing is the least plausible option because we know that nothing comes from nothing.

It really doesn't matter how many times we tell you that isn't true does it?

You guys aren't really flying the flag for the Christianity is perfectly rational cause here.

• We know that nothing can come from nothing.
  
• We know that causality doesn't hold in this universe, let alone anywhere else.
  
• We know that events in the future can cause events in the past.
  
• We know that time probably began at the moment of the Big Bang so the "cause" of the Big Bang may itself be a nonsensical concept.

I don't really care that you guys have trouble with that, that is a consequence of the way your brains process the world and very little to do with the way the universe actually works.

It does baffle me though that when we go to the trouble of trying to explain this to you (often at great length) you just flatly ignore it and continue repeating your "rational" reasons for believing God made the universe.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does anybody here believe that anything can come from nothing?

Yes, as has been explained to you many many many many times already.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Maybe it can

It can.

Soul Winner wrote: »

but if the choice between hypothesis 1) A Creator or 2) Nothing had to be made choosing 2) is obviously the lease plausible.

Ask yourself the question of what God made the universe out of and then tell me nothing come from nothing.

Either God made the universe out of something that already existed, in which case you have to ask where that came from, or he made the universe out of nothing

The argument that you can't make nothing out of nothing except if you are God is an oxymoron. If God can make something out of nothing then it is possible to make something out of nothing, and the argument that a Creator is a more plausible alternative goes out the window.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As far as the standard big band model goes these are the only options open.

Considering the Big Band models starts at the moment of creation those are not even considered in the model, let alone the only options open.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if the universe has a beginning and a beginner then atheism is irrational.

Considering atheists say that none of us have any clue what, if anything, caused the Big Bang, and theists say they not only know what caused it but can describe this thing in detail because it occasionally talks to us, I'm really not following how you think atheism is the irrational one there.

Say for a minute that we assume that the universe was created by something. What possible evidence do you have that that something was an intelligence? Proper evidence, not The Bible says so evidence.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who the heck ever ascribed human characteristics to lightning?

Most religions attributed lightening to an act of a god(s). Some still do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Ok then given the Standard Big Bang model what other options have we got? The super particle? Do you think that it is rational to believe that everything came about from a hypothetical super particle?

As opposed to what, an omnipotent deity that just happens to exist and offers us nice things like eternal life?

Yeah, I'll take the super particle :P

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is so wrong about postulating that God did it, especially in the absence of any reasonable alternative? Saying that we simply don't know is not a good replacement for the God hypothesis, you need more than that.

Saying God did it is lazy and self servicing. It is not the most rational position, it is the most pleasing position.

Which is fine, believe away. But stop throwing out the baby with the bath water. Stop pretending it is rational or supported by science or the "most plausible explanation"

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

Pick one of them. Copy paste it to the thread and we'll rebut.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

Yeah welcome to 5 years ago

Everything JC has said has been refuted ad-nausea literally years ago.

He doesn't care, it is certainly not going to stop him posting the same old lies and misrepresentations, so why should we care.

I say roll with it :P:confused::p:pac::D;);):o:eek::cool::)

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.

A Dades, 2005 was an innocent time for you :P

philologos

Although these are really arguments against evolution, rather than arguments for young earth creationism, I'd like to hear some rebuttals to these.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.

According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more useful to refute some of the stuff that J C has brought up instead of constantly laughing it off?

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by attempting to refute anything J C says unless you particularly like a lot of coloured text and smilies, everything he is saying has been refuted dozens of times.

There is no debate to be had here. Creationism is fiction and evolution is scientific fact. I have explained the mechanism of evolution once in this thread and the explanation was rejected with a baseless appeal to irreducible complexity so now I'm really just here for sh!ts and giggles and to marvel at the mental sonersaults some people will go through to hold onto belief

philologos

munsterdevil: If you have not read the Bible fully for yourself, and if you have never attempted to see things from a Christian point of view before, there is no point in discussing this in any great detail. I would advise you to give God a genuine chance before rubbishing every Christian claim with what seem to be sketchy counter-arguments.

munsterdevil

Jakkass wrote: »

munsterdevil: If you have not read the Bible fully for yourself, and if you have never attempted to see things from a Christian point of view before, there is no point in discussing this in any great detail. I would advise you to give God a genuine chance before rubbishing every Christian claim with what seem to be sketchy counter-arguments.

Total Cop Out, I also haven't read Little red Riding Hood and Jack and the Beanstalk, and why? because I know they are nothing more than fairy tales, you expect me to read thousands of pages of the Bible to go into a conversation with you! Most people on this thread haven't it read either I'll wager, and believe me I've read my fair share of the bible.

I have the Bible here in front of me and I know how to read it chapter and verse, so if you want to continue the discussion I am still here.