Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

Claim:
The occurrence of limestone deposits that are so great and so uniform defies explanation except by massive precipitation from chemical-rich waters, consistent with catastrophism, not uniformitarianism. Dolomite sediments are not being formed at all today; they also require an exceptional explanation.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 104.
Response:

1. Uniformitarian processes explain limestone formations far better than catastrophism does:
* Limestones form continuously today over wide areas (such as the Caribbean) as calcium carbonate is precipitated from water directly and through the actions of organisms. Limestone formation easily fits within conventional geology.
* Limestones appear in strata interleaved between strata of sandstones and other rocks. A single event could not explain all the layers.
* Limestones often include fragile fossils that could not survive catastrophic transport.

Dolomites require no exceptional explanation. They form via diagenesis (a sort of chemical rearrangement in the deep subsurface) from calcite, the main ingredient of limestone. Creationism does not explain the origin of dolomite.

2. Limestone could not have formed quickly from massive precipitation, because the formation of calcite releases heat. If only 10 percent of the world's limestone were formed during the Flood, the 5.6 x 1026 joules of heat released would be enough to boil the flood waters (Isaak 1998).

References:

1. Isaak, Mark, 1998. Problems with a global flood, 2nd ed. www.talkorigins.org...

Claim:
Sandstones and shales cover large areas, larger than we observe being produced today. This is consistent with deposition by a global flood, not with uniformitarianism.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 102-103.
Response:

1. Sandstones, shales and other formations often do not have uniform ages. For example, the extensive St. Peter Sandstone of central North America was deposited at different times in different locations.

2. Shales form mostly from mud on the ocean floor, which does cover large areas. In the late Ordovician, much of North America was covered by a shallow sea. Much shale formed there over millions of years, to be exposed when the sea level lowered.

Sands occur mostly along shorelines. When a shoreline recedes gradually, sands can be left covering a large area.

3. A catastrophic flood would not be expected to produce such large amounts of shale and sandstone. The particle sizes in these sediments is uniform; the gravel, sand, and mud have been sorted apart into different areas. The high energies in the flood would mix everything together. At best, a flood could redeposit sands or muds that already existed, and it would take millions of years for such quantities to form.

Furthermore, shales are sometimes found atop sandstones. A single flood could not deposit both. Even more impossible for a single flood, we also see multiple layers of sand or shale interleaved with other materials, such as volcanic ash [Nanayama et al. 2003].

References:

1. Nanayama, Futoshi et al., 2003. Unusually large earthquakes inferred from tsunami deposits along the Kuril trench. Nature 424: 660-663.





[edit on 1/8/2008 by Triarchic]

Edit for Video Embed...

[edit on 1/8/2008 by Triarchic]

reply to post by OldThinker


Are you afraid to say what tomb you speak of knowing what the obvious reply would be?

I'll go ahead and move forward two steps.
Prove he ever existed.

An empty tomb is just that. An empty tomb.
For all I know all of the Biblical writers could have been high the day they spoke of the man.

reply to post by Triarchic


Awww...


How do you embed videos?

reply to post by Triarchic


Go to the video on YouTube! and click the "more share options"... (found below the video display)
Then, copy everything that appears after the = sign. It will be a series of letters and/or numbers.
Then, in your reply section, click the YouTube! VIDEO button and paste everything you copied into the box.

Done



[edit on 25-8-2009 by JayinAR]

I always laugh at "debates" like this because people are falling for a classic bait and switch gambit every time they take the effort to refute the claims made. They make a mountain of a molehill.

In reality, nothing about creationism can be shown to be factual.

All creationism is is a wild hypothesis. None of which can be validated in any way.
So, we stick with Science for knowledge and religion for faith. The two don't have to compete. There is plenty of room for a person to be a Christian AND an "evolutionist"... All it requires is for the Christian to introspect their faith and realize that God is great enough to do all of the things he said while still using the processes we observe today.

But at the end of the day, Creationism has no place in the Science classroom.

[edit on 25-8-2009 by JayinAR]

Another great video... by Youtuber Potholer54!

What you get are self-proclaimed "thinkers" who simply try to pass the buck of validation onto something else.
They always create slippery arguments.

For instance, the Grand Canyon was carved by global flood waters...therefore everything in the bible is true!

Bull.

What a creationist needs to do in order to get their ideas pushed forward as fact, is impossible.
In reality, they need to validate the authorative claim of God in the first place...
And then down the line each and every other claim to arrive at where they are today.

And time after time again, I see 'atheists' try to stick it to them with vast quantities of useless knowledge.
I say it is useless because everyone here knows it is falling on deaf ears and you are simply wearing yourself out.
You will eventually grow tired of trying to prove a negative claim and the "thinker" will claim victory.

It is really a very silly exchange to watch.

Edit to add - Plus, the exceptionally studious of the Christians will remember Paul's words. Be ready to defend and apologize for your faith, but beware not to take part in fruitless debate.
That is what this is. Fruitless.

As I have said before, you will NEVER see creationism taught as science in schools. Simply won't happen.
You are waxing your ego here. Nothing more. Which can also be viewed as self-righteous.


[edit on 25-8-2009 by JayinAR]

This ole guy can never be intimated....you otta know that!

While pondering, pls see....s62.photobucket.com...

See you later....if you investigate...in a week or so....

if not...

a quick smart arsh response??? Just remember to BOOKMARK IT...so you can go back, after life was does it does!!!

Originally posted by JayinAR


As I have said before, you will NEVER see creationism taught as science in schools. Simply won't happen.
You are waxing your ego here. Nothing more. Which can also be viewed as self-righteous.

You are probably right...

btw, the Apostle Paul NEVER backed down from legitimate discussions

Originally posted by JayinAR
...
You are waxing your ego here. Nothing more. Which can also be viewed as self-righteous......

Brother, you should really look into OT....no ego here....

The OP just asked avery very simple.....question, that's all!

Whom to you belong to?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


Of course he never backed down from legitimate discussion.
But he also warned not to partake in fruitless debate. Which is what this is. You just admitted as much yourself.

Any rational man can see why creationism isn't taught as Science.
It isn't verifiable. And you know that.

reply to post by OldThinker

The OP just asked avery very simple.....question, that's all!

Yes, the thread-piece was a very simple question.
My initial response in this thread was also a very simple answer. But you chose to not recognize that answer and you started speaking of some unnamed tomb.

Aside from that, the rest of this thread is likely garbage. I don't even need to read it to ascertain that.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Of course he never backed down from legitimate discussion.
But he also warned not to partake in fruitless debate. Which is what this is. You just admitted as much yourself.

Any rational man can see why creationism isn't taught as Science.
It isn't verifiable. And you know that.

So you respect the Apostle Paul?

oT

reply to post by OldThinker


Do I respect the Apostle Paul?!
Of course I do. You don't find many soldiers who have the moral fortitude to turn-coat against who is an obvious oppressor and support the oppressed.
Anyone who does so is DESERVING of respect.

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OldThinker

 

Do I respect the Apostle Paul?!
Of course I do. You don't find many soldiers who have the moral fortitude to turn-coat against who is an obvious oppressor and support the oppressed.
Anyone who does so is DESERVING of respect.

So I guess you respect his savior/best friend Jesus Christ, too?

OT

reply to post by OldThinker


If you are trying to convert me or catch me in a conundrum, it won't happen.
You see, in my opinion, you miss the context of the word "savior"...
Also, Jesus wasn't his best friend. He didn't even know Jesus.

Aside from that, you are willingly trying to take your own thread off the topic of Creationism being taught in School.
You haven't addressed my points as to why it ISN'T taught in school.

Which is the entire "simple question."

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by OldThinker

 

If you are trying to convert me or catch me in a conundrum, it won't happen.
You see, in my opinion, you miss the context of the word "savior"...
Also, Jesus wasn't his best friend. He didn't even know Jesus.

Aside from that, you are willingly trying to take your own thread off the topic of Creationism being taught in School.
You haven't addressed my points as to why it ISN'T taught in school.

Which is the entire "simple question."

Can you pleeease slow down? no one is trying to CONVERT you....that is way above my pay grade........

You have a question "why" it is isn't taught? After you do your due diligence and research...or at least read the thread...I'll get back with ya...

btw, answer the JC question ok?

OT

Furthermore, I am merely granting that these people even existed at all.
I allowed myself to go halfway with you for the sake of discussion, but I don't think it is following a route I am terribly interested in following.

I was more interested in answering why creationism wasn't taught in school.

reply to post by OldThinker


I am not interested nearly enough to read this thread.
As far as the research, I'm caught up - thanks.

I was merely passing time. Having a few laughs.

(Exits stage left)

Originally posted by JayinAR
Furthermore, I am merely granting that these people even existed at all.
I allowed myself to go halfway with you for the sake of discussion, but I don't think it is following a route I am terribly interested in following.

I was more interested in answering why creationism wasn't taught in school.

I am there, with you...it is true...and oh, yeah, JC thought it true, too...see:

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. For instance:

1. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).This makes it clear that Jesus taught the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed ‘from the beginning ’–not billions of years after the universe and Earth came into existence.

2. Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you –Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words? (John 5:45-47). In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. This, of course, is the basis of our seven-day week –six days work and one day rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

In fact, in Luke 13:14, in his response to Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he said, There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day here was considered an ordinary day, and the six days of work were considered ordinary days. This teaching is based on the law of Moses as recorded in Exodus 20,where we find the Ten Commandments –the six- day Creation week being a basis for the Fourth Commandment.

One could consider many more passages that certainly imply that Jesus taught that He created in six days, but are there any explicit passages?

I believe there are. However, one has to approach this issue in a slightly different manner. Why just go to the New Testament to try to find out if Jesus stated He created in six days?

Why not the Old Testament? After all, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, and has always existed.

First, Colossians makes it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the one who created all things: For by Him all things were created that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist (Colossians 1:16-17).

We are also told elsewhere in Scripture how Jesus created: By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth … For He spoke,, and it was done (Psalm 33:6,9).

As well as this, we know that Jesus is in fact called ‘the Word ’: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:1-3).

So Jesus, who is the Word, created by speaking everything into existence.

Now, consider Exodus 20:1: And God spoke all these words, saying…. Because Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. As we know, there are a number of appearances of Christ (‘theophanies ’) in the Old Testament.

John 1:18 states: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses etc.

Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day ….

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created in six days.* Not only this, but the one who spoke the words ‘six days ’ also wrote them down for Moses: Then the LORD delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly: He created in six days! And He even did something He didn’t do with most of Scripture –He wrote it down Himself. How more authoritative can you get than that?

source: THE BIBLE/NT and Dr. Hamm

thoughts?

you denying?

Evidence to support?

OT