Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a lot of information here. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Now granted, because you're a skeptic, I know you will find fault with anything I would post. I'm not trying to dissuade you from your position. I'm just presenting a counter-argument to the position you posted.
As far as teaching creation science in the classrooms, that's not what all creationists are after. What most of us are after is the introduction of the evidence that shows evolution is not as clear cut or written in stone as evolutionists would have us believe. There is plenty of scientific evidence, from non-creation scientists to bring into question many of evolution's so call hard facts. This is what most creationists want taught in schools.
There has never been a world wide flood. A flood of this magnitude would have left more evidence than any other geologic event that has ever occurred and yet there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Welcome to the forum Radagast. You're off to a great start.
There has never been a world wide flood. A flood of this magnitude would have left more evidence than any other geologic event that has ever occurred and yet there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
It's me.. the broken record playing on and on and on....
There's evidence, it's just in how you look at it. Because you believe in the dating metods as accurate, you believe fossils are millions of years old. I see most of the fossil record as the buried creatures from the flood.
You see the Grand Canyon being carved over millions of years by slow and gradual processes, whereas I see it being created during the year of the global flood.
You see plate tectonics happening slowly, as they do today, so it had to take millions of years to "push up" Mt. Everest, because it only gains what, an inch a year or something like that. Whereas I can agree with catastrophic plate tectonics happening, causing the continents we see today breaking up and moving into place within that same time frame.
What does make me laugh, though, is that NASA scientists studying Mars - a planet with no liquid water such as our planet has - are theorizing a global flood there based on certain evidence, but deny Noah's flood on earth with the same type of evidence present. Funny!!
So, from my worldview the evidence is there, evolutionists just don't get it. And I'm sure, from your point of view, I'm not getting your views either. Oh well, it's the never-ending story .....
Hi mams, good to argue with you again! I think we might have done this before but it's still fun.
I don't think I've ever heard a good explanation for the fact that the fossils managed to arrange themselves in such an orderly manner after this so called flood. All of the modern species are neatly tucked into sediments that appear to be much newer than what came before them. It's not just dating methods, although I believe they're extremely accurate, it's also the common sense realization that newer sediments are going to be deposited on top of the older ones because they were already there. Mams, I like you and respect your point of view but you've got to ignore some very persuasive evidence to come to the conclusions that you have.
Ok, take a shot at me.
You see the Grand Canyon being carved over millions of years by slow and gradual processes, whereas I see it being created during the year of the global flood.
Can you expand on this statement a bit? I fail too see how a flood would make the Grand Canyon form quickly. If anything, wouldn't having the entire area under water prevent it from forming? I mean, why would just the canyon erode under all of the water, without the area around in eroding?
Hi mams, good to argue with you again! I think we might have done this before but it's still fun.
I don't think I've ever heard a good explanation for the fact that the fossils managed to arrange themselves in such an orderly manner after this so called flood. All of the modern species are neatly tucked into sediments that appear to be much newer than what came before them. It's not just dating methods, although I believe they're extremely accurate, it's also the common sense realization that newer sediments are going to be deposited on top of the older ones because they were already there. Mams, I like you and respect your point of view but you've got to ignore some very persuasive evidence to come to the conclusions that you have.
Ok, take a shot at me.
No, I put my six-shooter away You know, us zealots can't be trusted to handle weaponry (j/k)
Actually, I have read an article that explains what you call the layering of types of creatures as the order of burial. If you think about it, the creatures most likely to avoid the rising flood the longest (humans) would be buried last or not get buried as well and decompose instead of being fossilized and hence the reason for the least amount of fossilized remains. Also, I've gathered that it depends upon which scientists you read as to how orderly the arrangement really is. There are fossils that "cross the lines" from one rock age into another that can't be explained using current uniformtarian explanations of how fossils were buried.
There's also articles out there regarding how sediments are deposited by type or weight (something like that) and like the striations at the Grand Canyon, feet thick, it would take a huge volume of water to deposit successive sediment layers that thick, without signs of erosion between them.
I know, it's not as brilliant as my other replies , but I haven't read up/studied as much on this specific topic as some others. So it's a general, casual answer. But the info is out there to explore.
Can you expand on this statement a bit? I fail too see how a flood would make the Grand Canyon form quickly. If anything, wouldn't having the entire area under water prevent it from forming? I mean, why would just the canyon erode under all of the water, without the area around in eroding?
Here's some links that support my view. You're welcome to read them. I caution, they are from a biblical worldview. May people will dismiss them as "unscientific", but I believe they interpret the evidence better than evolutionists. That's my opinion, anyway.
Grand Canyon strata show geologic time is imaginary (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp - broken link)
Last edited by mams1559; 07-30-2007 at 08:29 PM..
Reason: correct a link
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.....
