Biblical Creation vs Evolution- the age of the Earth

[total relism]

Post 39 is absolutely riddled with holes. It's got intellectual woodworm. Where to start?

Thanks for taking the time to read some of my material, most as you can see have not. Finally some discussion on topic.

Nobody is arguing that a monkey evolves into a man or that a fish turns into an amphibian. That would be magic.

Yes my apologies i should clarify, evolution says over millions of years [their magic creator see op] "evolves" a monkey kind type ancestor into a human and "evolves" a fish into an amphibian, just my point in my op.

"It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."
—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137.

“time is in fact the hero of the plot...given so much time the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait time itself performs mircels”
-George Wald “the origins of life” physics and chemistry of life

We can test the "Noah flood" simply by observing and measuring that there isn't enough water in the world for it to have happened, the change in the atmosphere needed to support the stated volume of water in the stated time would have made the air unbreathable and it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time.
Nobody is arguing that the World created itself, creation implies agency and the World is not seen as an agent - unless you are one of the more extreme advocates of the Gaia hypothesis.

I must admit your test is not the best. If the earth’s surface were even, then there is enough water in the oceans to cover the globe to a depth of about 3 km. So here is the water you seek.



During the flood

"The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them."
-Psalm 104.8

The bile indicates the crust was one big continent before the flood. God gathered the waters together into “one place,” separate from the dry land.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
That is why every creation flood model involved the movement of earths crust in some manner.
-Gen 1 9-10


This is why every major creation flood model involves earths crust movements.



you claimed "it would have been impossible to gather so many species in such a short time. " could you tell me how long god had to send animals to noah? from what distance? and show me how it would not work. I shall than show the faults in your claim.

No, your conclusion is reliant on your world view. When geology was in its infancy, people did not set out to use it to prove the World was very old, this conclusion was drawn from the evidence. In order to reject the conclusion, you must believe that geology is wrong, that geology is pseudoscience, for which of course, you cannot provide any proper evidence.

Nor would I. Geology disproves an old earth. Know geology first switched to uniformtarnism because of Lyell. In 1829, just a few months prior to the publication of the first volume of his Principles of Geology, Lyell wrote, in a letter to fellow old-earth geologist Roderick Murchison:

I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old [Rev. John] Fleming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible

Lyell wrote on 14th June 1830 in a letter to George Poulett Scrope:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P .S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.


So not only are evolutionist bias today, so they were at the beginning.


“the idea of a cooly rational scientific observer, completely independent free of all preconceived theories prior philosophical, ethical and religious commitments doing investigations and coming to dispassionate unbias conclusions that constitute truth, is nowadays regarded by serious philosophers of science and indeed most scientist as a simplistic myth”
-professor John Lennox, fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science oxford university


“The stereotype of a rational and objective scientific method and individual scientist as logical and interchangeable robots is self-serving mythology”
- evolutionist Stepehn j Gould in the mind of the beholder natural history 103 feb 1994

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer. See refutation of his Washington Post article attacking creation.

Yes, it is.
[B

[/B]


Dont wait for me support the claim logically and scientifically.

No, they don't and no they don't. It looks like that to you, because you still have a the mediaeval "chain of being" view of living creatures, descending from God from complexity to simplicity. Evolution does not say organisms become "more complex" only that genetic mutation is inherited according to the environment. Most of the rest of the post makes the same mistake.

well if that is all that is meant by evolutionist, than I am one. This thread only applies to those who believe similar to Darwin, that all life shares a common ancestor and evolution explains the diversity of all life.