Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

reply to post by daskakik

But in the flood story the continents was already close to their present locations and above sea level

I'm gonna need some objective evidence for this you know ?

reply to post by randyvs

Sorry don't have anything but the story itself. If you are having trouble believing it then you have just switched sides.

reply to post by daskakik


That would be a miracle.

reply to post by randyvs


The vid you posted comes from here:
The case against pangea

Earth was progressively smaller as we go back in time over 4 – 5 billion years it grew from a small planetesimal to a planet the size of Mars. The increasing speed of growth increased exponentially. The heat under the crust from this growth increased as it grew and the thin thick crust cracked more profoundly, and 2 – 4 miles deep, and over the final 200 million years rifted the ocean to reveal new deeper basalt plate until we have the Earth we see today.

Notice that he starts talking about billions of years and exponentially increased growth happening in the last 200 millions of years while Noah is said to have lived around 2900 BC so yes, according to the vid you posted, the continents would have been pretty close to the way they are know.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

And based the evidence presented so far it's the reality - scientific facts agree with biblical facts.

You haven't presented a grain of objective evidence in this thread.

Of course what would a die-hard athiest say but the above. No surprised there.

Even worse, every time someone completely destroys your arguments, you just ignore it

Huh? You haven't even disproven the Facts presented in OP let alone the succeding post. All you keep doing is -

Lalalalalalalala - lalallalalaaaa- evolution is a fact creation is false.

So here's your chance - let's just pick one: prove that Fact 1 in the OP is false using objective evidence.

And no...scientific facts often don't agree with claims in the bible. The bible is full of inaccuracies and stuff that's demonstrably wrong...like the claim that humans just popped up on earth in their current form, or the claim that a global flood happened

So your using a Wiki page to prove that the Bible is inaccurate. That is rich.

But i think ur the one who keeps ignoring my replies - for example, on your Wiki page - you seem to believe what the writer wrote as the sequence of creation event.

Yet on page 24 I've already proven it be incorrect. I don't want to explain it again so here's the page link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As of "the claim that humans just popped up on earth in their current form" -

Actually, human did not "just popped up on earth in their current form" but they were formed from the elements of the earth - as well as the stars. I've covered this already so I will not repeat it again.

But if you're interested here's the link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the Global Flood - I'm working on it - stay tuned.

Interesting thing is whenever science is in conflict with biblical facts - the Word of God is ALLWAYS correct.

=======

So in your fantasy land nothing could ever contradict the bible...even though in reality, it clearly does. Global flood, never happened. People surviving inside whales, complete and utter nonsense. Even the Exodus story is historically incorrect. And of course it's a fact that the claim humans just popped up in their current form without evolving from a species that is now extinct is also nonsense.

Believing that an unguided process created everything is fantasy and that's what you believe. How ironic.

As for "People surviving inside whales", at least you admit that whales can swallow people. Matter of fact, the sperm whale is capable of swallowing an entire human being because of it large stomach/intestines. I don't know if you saw this one episode on Discovery Channel where to found a giant squid in the the belly of a sperm whale.

Then there's also this fact - The Australian Zoological Handbook says the great white shark :

“could easily swallow a man whole.”

The Natural History of Sharks reports that a 15-foot-long white shark taken in 1939 contained two whole six-foot-long sharks in its stomach—each about the size of a man.

As for surviving for three days - do you want to volunteer to find out?

Fact1: The Universe and the Earth had a beginning - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1).

----

You are sneaking in the god part. It's reasonable to assume the earth and universe had a beginning...but given the complete lack of evidence supporting the claim that a deity was involved, it would be laughably ignorant to claim just that.

Huh - "sneaking in the god part"? Since I believe the Bible is the word of God and that God is the creator - how would that be sneakinin?

On the other hand - you have no objective evidence that God did not create the "heavens and the earth". All you have is your own word.

Your word agains the Word of God. I wonder who will win.

Fact2: The Stars/Galaxies are spread out in a fine construction from our pov - "the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22)

The most detailed picture we have looks nothing like a tent. But who cares about facts if they contradict your belief...right?

I guess you also ignored what I posted in addition to image captured by scientist about the intricate webbing of the galaxies.

Here's part of the post (page 18):

Behold - via lactea:

Think about this too, on a clear night if you look at the heavens the thousands of stars do, indeed, form a lacy web stretched over the black velvet background of space. In fact even the enormous galaxy known as the Via Lactea, or Milky Way, in which our solar system is located, has a filmy gauzelike appearance from earth’s viewpoint.

Below is a view of “Via Lactea” from earth:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bdf9e589eab.jpg[/atsimg]

A closer look:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eae88c18a3bf.jpg[/atsimg]

Q: Do you think the prophet Isaiah was referring to something like this as “stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze”? Or was he referring to clouds? Which one makes more sense?

You just keep on reposting all your points and ignore every single answer that points out how incorrect you are

As long as you keep ignoring them.

Welcome to the 21st century, stop believing in fairy tales that are demonstrably wrong!

Cute cartoon - just like the theory of evolution it's not real.

ty,
edmc2

edit on 27-6-2011 by edmc^2 because: spell

reply to post by daskakik


Alright then sink all the continents ? Either way you can see my point just with the depth of the oceans. What is it 75% of earth is covered by water ? Tell me, by sheer volume, a global flood isn't possible ?

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik

 

Alright then sink all the continents ? Either way you can see my point just with the depth of the oceans. What is it 75% of earth is covered by water ? Tell me, by sheer volume, a global flood isn't possible?

No because all that water is filling the oceans. To get it to rise above that level you would need additional water. That is why I mentioned the polar ice caps. This is water that, if melted, would cause the level to rise but it would still not cover the whole world in water.

I have read that there are around 1,300,000,000 cubic kilometres of water on the planet and in order to cover most of the land it would take about 3 times that amount.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by daskakik

 

Alright then sink all the continents ? Either way you can see my point just with the depth of the oceans. What is it 75% of earth is covered by water ? Tell me, by sheer volume, a global flood isn't possible?

No because all that water is filling the oceans. To get it to rise above that level you would need additional water. That is why I mentioned the polar ice caps. This is water that, if melted, would cause the level to rise but it would still not cover the whole world in water.

I have read that there are around 1,300,000,000 cubic kilometres of water on the planet and in order to cover most of the land it would take about 3 times that amount.

I disagree.
75% water most of it very deep plus the ice caps VS. 25% Dry land. I think there is a gigantic possibility that there was a global flood. Just by looking around.

reply to post by randyvs


Your talking surface area not volume.

You also have to remember that in order to flood the land masses you also have to fill the air between the land masses. Maybe if you can displace the water in the oceans but then you would have to fill the canyons (oceans, lakes, swamps, etc.) that the water is now occupying with more water or something else.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Ah, yes. Another God promotion from the indefatigable edmc^2, who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh.

Guess what? I’m not playing this time.

And frankly, my sensible friends, neither should you. I say we stop feeding this creationist’s habit.

Once again, Christian prophecy is 100% accurate:

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 3:1-6
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Sorry to complicate things but I believe that "unintelligent, unguided natural forces" are responsible for things in general in the universe (physical dimension) and something which I can't define is responsible for the rest.

The latter is not the creator described in the bible.

In other words you do agree then with the other evolution camp - that BLIND CHANCE DID IT.

Or as Nobel laureate Christian de Duve said:

"Chance and chance alone, did it all, from the primevial soup to man,"

Or as Nobel laureate Jacques L Manod said:

"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution",..."Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerge only by chance."

Thus elevating chance as the CAUSAL POWER behind things if not all things.

Interestingly, MrXYZ thinks that he's not with you on this but upon further clarification of his statements - he is a proponent of BLIND CHANCE - just don't want to admit it - or maybe not aware of it yet - or in denial.

But what does OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE show?

Great minds of the world see PURPOSEFUL DESIGN - not a haphazard unguided blind chance of design.

To quote one famous scientist:

"The fact that [the natural world] is comprehensive is a miracle" - Albert Einstein

Another said:

"the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."..."the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician"...

And further adds that it provides

"evidence of a designing or controling power that has something in common with our own individual minds." -- Sir James Jeans, mathematician, physicist and astronomer

Ask yourself this question - out of all the known locations in the universe, why is the earth located in the Milky Way Galaxy? Not only in the Milky Way Galaxy but at a VERY specific location in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Was it BLIND CHANCE that put it there or was it by purposeful design?

What's ur thought?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by daskakik

No
What I'm talking, saying is still what I started off saying. There is far to much water present on the planet for anyone to say a global flood is not possible. I'll be even more precise.

The statement, that the story of Noah's ark, the epic of Gilgamesh, a global flood can only be a fairytale ? Is completely ignorant if not assinine.

X
isn't content, to to employ only his biased point of view, in every one of his posts. He also shows malice by posting blatant propaganda such as," Family guy ". Moronic humor at best. The CREATORS of which seem
adherd to an agenda, that seeks the annhialation, of what's left of Gods moral code in America.

reply to post by edmc^2


I do think you could very well call it BLIND CHANCE but then that would show that you don't fully understand how things happen in nature. The very choice of words implies that it is something difficult, if not impossible.

Also I think it is rather pedantic to want to force that label on those that realize that although it could stick it isn't altogether accurate. Kinda like me saying you should stop using "god" and instead use "allah" because god could infer any god from any of the worlds myths but their is only one "allah" and you are just being disrepectful by your continued use of "god".

I really don't care what choice of words the authors you cited chose. It's all personal interpretation. Just opinions.

reply to post by randyvs


You keep saying the same thing but it is wrong.

Take a kids swimming pool drop half a dozen solid cement blocks (land mass) and fill the pool so that the water covers half way up the cement blocks. That is our present day world.

Now there is three time more water than land (cement blocks). The only way that you can completely cover the cement blocks is to add an equal amount of water to what is already in the pool or add something else (like sand) the make the water level rise. You have to fill all the airspace between the upper half of the cement blocks before the cement blocks can be completely covered.

reply to post by daskakik


So you believe the statement, "the story of the flood is a fairytale" and can't be considered factual, is a legitimate statement ? With 3/4 of the planet already inundated by water it's impossible that the whole planet
was ever covered by water ? That's just crazy and I'm avoiding the arguement that additional water is possible. Or even oil.

reply to post by randyvs


Where is the additional water coming from?

And in the spirit of this thread, where does science agree?

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by randyvs

 

Where is the additional water coming from?

And in the spirit of this thread, where does science agree?

edit on 27-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

The land masses of earth don't sit on the bottom of a rubber pool do they? Nor are they made completely from rock ?

Originally posted by randyvs
The land masses of earth don't sit on the bottom of a rubber pool do they? Nor are they made completely from rock ?

Picking on the simplicity of the example does not invalidate physics.

Prove what you are saying even with a simple example.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by randyvs

 

Where is the additional water coming from?

And in the spirit of this thread, where does science agree?

edit on 27-6-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

So you want me to prove that I think this statement is assinine ?

"the story of the flood is a fairytale"

Or that if the BP deep sea oil gyser, if allowed to go unchecked, would have filled up the whole earth with a gooey muddy corexit laced liquid ? You want me to prove there are possible fountains of water that remain untapped in the earth. ? Or maybe you want me to prove that, there are great casms of space where we have drained the earth of oil ? That large sections of land couldn't sink in on themselves to fill these voids, below sea level ? You want me to prove all these possibilities, to show you the above statement a Dawkins favorite, is
indeed assinine ?

I don't think it's even necessary.

reply to post by randyvs


I want you to prove that there is enough water on the planet to flood all the land mass.

Forget the story. I agree that people 5000 years ago could have lived through an isolated flood that made them believe the whole world flooded. What you are saying is that the whole world did indeed flood and that, in this day and age, is naive. Plus you have only offered your misunderstanding of surface area and volume as proof.

75% of the "surface" of the planet is covered in water but it doesn't make up 75% of its volume.

The volume of planet earth is 1,097,509,500,000,000,000 cubic kilometers so the total volume of water which is stated as 1,300,000,000 cubic kilometres is only .000000001th of the earths volume.