Evidence for God from Science

Home - you had better check up what Christ has to say about the global flood and also Peter who gets his info not from flesh and blood humans in the guise of scientists but direct from the creator of science and scientists - come home now - twinc

And twinc, do you realize the difference between Darwinian Evolution, and Old Earth/Progressive Creationism? Because some people who aren't informed, may erroneously think they are the same.

I've read tons and tons of evidence from YEC "scientists" that have been used to try and push their position on creation. Out of all that evidence, which is enough to make a book in itself, only one..yes ONE point has not been proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. That point is at a standstill right now because it can neither prove nor disprove either creation view. Whenever I debate young vs old earth creation with someone I get them backed into a corner of proof, then I allways hear the same things when they are stuck. 1. "God made it that way. he can do anything. You have to have faith" 2. "satan will do anything to trick you" 3. "I've heard that all before. It's all lies and they dont know what they are talking about"

Another thing i hear alot of is "flood geology". So many proponents of young earth creation use this as thier cornerstone and give it the strangest magical powers I've ever heard of, like the following: the flood completely destroyed and rebuilt the earth, it slowed down time, it changed the fundementals of nuclear physics, it altered the human mind's perception of reality and so on. When i ask what these things are based on they either say nothing (which means they haven't thought of that) or they tell me its in the bible....somewhere (which means they havent thought of that)
I'm still waiting for someone to present some good points or proof for the YEC position

secretfire6 wrote:I've read tons and tons of evidence from YEC "scientists" that have been used to try and push their position on creation. Out of all that evidence, which is enough to make a book in itself, only one..yes ONE point has not been proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. That point is at a standstill right now because it can neither prove nor disprove either creation view. Whenever I debate young vs old earth creation with someone I get them backed into a corner of proof, then I allways hear the same things when they are stuck. 1. "God made it that way. he can do anything. You have to have faith" 2. "satan will do anything to trick you" 3. "I've heard that all before. It's all lies and they dont know what they are talking about"

Another thing i hear alot of is "flood geology". So many proponents of young earth creation use this as thier cornerstone and give it the strangest magical powers I've ever heard of, like the following: the flood completely destroyed and rebuilt the earth, it slowed down time, it changed the fundementals of nuclear physics, it altered the human mind's perception of reality and so on. When i ask what these things are based on they either say nothing (which means they haven't thought of that) or they tell me its in the bible....somewhere (which means they havent thought of that)
I'm still waiting for someone to present some good points or proof for the YEC position

there is here no problem for an old YEC that used to be a long time young OEC - so the problem would appear to be you and your resistance to good points presented - so just try this one "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rocks layers laid down by water all over the earth - repeat all over the earth" - twinc

twinc wrote:

secretfire6 wrote:I've read tons and tons of evidence from YEC "scientists" that have been used to try and push their position on creation. Out of all that evidence, which is enough to make a book in itself, only one..yes ONE point has not been proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt. That point is at a standstill right now because it can neither prove nor disprove either creation view. Whenever I debate young vs old earth creation with someone I get them backed into a corner of proof, then I allways hear the same things when they are stuck. 1. "God made it that way. he can do anything. You have to have faith" 2. "satan will do anything to trick you" 3. "I've heard that all before. It's all lies and they dont know what they are talking about"

Another thing i hear alot of is "flood geology". So many proponents of young earth creation use this as thier cornerstone and give it the strangest magical powers I've ever heard of, like the following: the flood completely destroyed and rebuilt the earth, it slowed down time, it changed the fundementals of nuclear physics, it altered the human mind's perception of reality and so on. When i ask what these things are based on they either say nothing (which means they haven't thought of that) or they tell me its in the bible....somewhere (which means they havent thought of that)
I'm still waiting for someone to present some good points or proof for the YEC position

there is here no problem for an old YEC that used to be a long time young OEC - so the problem would appear to be you and your resistance to good points presented - so just try this one "millions of dead things buried in sedimentary rocks layers laid down by water all over the earth - repeat all over the earth" - twinc

Tectonic plate movement- please repeat it multiple times.

old YEC that used to be a long time young OEC

Frankly I do not care which camp you belong to, either YEC, OEC or a downright flat-earther, what I would like to see is a good argument from you that creates a ground on which we can argue. Lack of that only shows that you want to assert your beliefs and nothing else.

Please feel free to share your observations concerning OEC as flawed compared to YEC, as I am sure I am curious as to what you may have to share with us.

neo-x wrote:

old YEC that used to be a long time young OEC

Frankly I do not care which camp you belong to, either YEC, OEC or a downright flat-earther, what I would like to see is a good argument from you that creates a ground on which we can argue. Lack of that only shows that you want to assert your beliefs and nothing else.

Please feel free to share your observations concerning OEC as flawed compared to YEC, as I am sure I am curious as to what you may have to share with us.

do I have to repeat mytself again and again when it should be pretty clear that millions of years of creation or evolution is out of the question for everything would be boiled alive or incinerated to just dust and ashes - the protective water vapour canopy was only installed thousands of years ago making life possible - the very existence of a protective water vapour canopy is denied by the millions of years ago OEC and evolutionists - twinc

do I have to repeat mytself again and again when it should be pretty clear that millions of years of creation or evolution is out of the question for everything would be boiled alive or incinerated to just dust and ashes - the protective water vapour canopy was only installed thousands of years ago making life possible - the very existence of a protective water vapour canopy is denied by the millions of years ago OEC and evolutionists - twinc

Please elaborate; the above doesn't prove what you are saying. Life existed in a variety of forms, billions of years ago it was not in this form as we see it today.

neo-x wrote:

do I have to repeat mytself again and again when it should be pretty clear that millions of years of creation or evolution is out of the question for everything would be boiled alive or incinerated to just dust and ashes - the protective water vapour canopy was only installed thousands of years ago making life possible - the very existence of a protective water vapour canopy is denied by the millions of years ago OEC and evolutionists - twinc

Please elaborate; the above doesn't prove what you are saying. Life existed in a variety of forms, billions of years ago it was not in this form as we see it today.

no life could have or did exist millions of years ago - the conditions were conducive to death not life - when life did exist a few thousand of years ago - the conditions were right and life was created in an instant out of nothing that was already existing and was created very good[complete] = no evolution necessary - twinc

twinc wrote:

neo-x wrote:

do I have to repeat mytself again and again when it should be pretty clear that millions of years of creation or evolution is out of the question for everything would be boiled alive or incinerated to just dust and ashes - the protective water vapour canopy was only installed thousands of years ago making life possible - the very existence of a protective water vapour canopy is denied by the millions of years ago OEC and evolutionists - twinc

Please elaborate; the above doesn't prove what you are saying. Life existed in a variety of forms, billions of years ago it was not in this form as we see it today.

no life could have or did exist millions of years ago - the conditions were conducive to death not life - when life did exist a few thousand of years ago - the conditions were right and life was created in an instant out of nothing that was already existing and was created very good[complete] = no evolution necessary - twinc

Twinc, I know you turn 82 tomorrow(Happy Birthday BTW) , but you're still not old enough to know first hand, that conditions weren't conducive to life millions of years ago. Since you weren't there millions of years ago, I'm going to ask you for references, as to why you say "no life could have or did exist millions of years ago - the conditions were conducive to death not life ". You keep spouting off empty rhetoric, with no proof to back up what you're saying. If you are going to continue to make assertions, with nothing to back up what you say, you need to think about if this is the place for you.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO GET ANGRY OR UPSET IF THEY DONT KNOW THE ANSWER WHICH THEY SHOULD SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD AGAIN AND AGAIN BY A VERY RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO ACCEPT BUT PREFER TO RELY ON WAY OUT ,WEIRD AND WACKY AND FALLIBLE,FLAWED,FAULTY,FAKED SOURCES - BTW WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ANYWAY - twinc

RickD wrote:I just thought about this question. If the flood was truly global as some creationists suggest, and the tops of the highest mountains were covered, including Mt. Everest, then how did those on the ark breathe? If Mt. Everest is 29,000 feet above sea level, and water seeks its own level, then the ark must have been floating over 29,000 feet above sea level. How did Noah, his family, and all the animals breathe with the low oxygen levels at that height? Just a thought for the YECs to ponder. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it's new to me.

it is because that water finds its own level as sea level that the flood was global not local - the earth is tilted water was sloshed about and nowhere is it stated everywhere was covered at the same time or the same period of time etc - btw it was then that the earth was flat and very good as it mostly is even now - twinc

I am an OEC I do not really believe in evolution but more of a small adaptations through time. God had created each species of animals and one can not turn into another. With that being said I do believe in a global flood and the whole Noah story to be true. So why did you aim your questions just at YECs? Can't OEC believe in a global flood also?

twinc wrote:it is because that water finds its own level as sea level that the flood was global not local - the earth is tilted water was sloshed about and nowhere is it stated everywhere was covered at the same time or the same period of time etc - btw it was then that the earth was flat and very good as it mostly is even now - twinc

--Translation required--
.
.

Mitzy wrote:I am an OEC I do not really believe in evolution but more of a small adaptations through time. God had created each species of animals and one can not turn into another. With that being said I do believe in a global flood and the whole Noah story to be true. So why did you aim your questions just at YECs? Can't OEC believe in a global flood also?

Sure, an OEC can certainly believe in a global flood. Good luck fitting that consistently with the rest of OEC.
Here, Mitzy. Take a look at this, and let us know what you think:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html