How did Jesus dying save us from our sins?

Oh, it's the kind of freedom people had in Iraq during saddam's rule...or the same kind of freedom the people in Chile had when Pinochet was the dictator there.

"Do what I say...or Die"

What a nice god we have...he looks like one ihell of a tyrant to me.

Some of the major reasons why evolution cannot be true are now presented.

1. Going from a Big Bang to a structured universe, from non-life to life, from simpler life to higher-order life all involve a tremendous increase in complexity. However, it is well-proven that when things are left to themselves, they always become LESS complex (they decay), the opposite of what evolution requires. This is known formally as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This tendency can only be overcome through the application of DIRECTED energy (such as using your muscles to put together the parts of a bicycle). Evolutionists argue that the sun provided more than enough energy to overcome the Second Law on the primitive earth, which is true, but this was not directed energy. To carry the above bicycle analogy forward, it is like saying that applying a blow torch at random to those bike parts should be enough to put the bike together!

The information content of a person (to describe the structure and operation of a person) is many, many times that of a bacterium (which is also far from simple), yet the field of Information Theory has shown that information, such as the coded programs in the biological cell, NEVER arises as a result of random, chance processes like those at the core of evolution.

2. The mechanism of neo-Darwinian evolution, natural selection acting on mutations, is totally inadequate. Almost all known mutations are harmful. The best (only?) "beneficial" mutation cited is sickle cell anemia (it can provide immunity to malaria). Also, natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present - it cannot create anything new!

3. The gap from non-life to life is very big. It requires both DNA and RNA to be present, working cooperatively, at the same time. Each of these structures are very complex. To get around this problem evolutionists say the first life may have been RNA-only, but this is pure speculation (and is still a significant problem). To date man has created only the simplest low-level building block of life in the laboratory (most of the amino acids). And if he does create life one day, it will involve the use of complex equipment and well thought out procedures, documenting the necessity for intelligence to make it happen. No "warm little pond" will do!

4. If evolution is this grand process that has transformed the simplest life into people, it should surely be demonstrable in the laboratory. In fact, extended experiments with fruit flies have produced many types of deformed fruit flies, but they remain fruit flies. Evolutionists will point to the large amount of time needed for evolution to work, but on the order of 10,000 generations of fruit flies have been bred and exposed to many times a naturally-occurring amount of mutation-inducing radiation, with no indication that any type of increase in complexity (upward evolution) is happening! These experiments show (like plant and animal breeding) that organisms have a certain capacity for change which cannot be exceeded.

5. If evolution cannot be documented in the laboratory, the only other place to find it would be in the record of the earth's history. However, the fossil record clearly shows that macro-evolution has not taken place. The oldest fossils of a particular plant or animal are always fully-formed (not some simpler version), and look identical in all significant aspects to the same plant or animal living today (although many fossil types are extinct).

The near-oldest rocks, so-called "Cambrian" rocks, contain many complex creatures, like Trilobites (now extinct). They are fully-formed, and there is not the slightest trace of a more primitive ancestor to be found in the older, "Pre-Cambrian" rocks. This period in evolutionary earth history is called the "Cambrian Explosion" because of the vast number of new life forms that appear abruptly.

What is true between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian ages is also true between every other age - no transitional forms are found! The most frequently cited "intermediate form", the reptile/bird "Archaeopteryx" is really a bird that has some reptilian features (like teeth). It has a "mosaic" of traits (some bird, some reptile), but each trait is fully-formed (including the feathers). There are animals alive today that are mosaics (e.g. the duckbill platypus). A true reptile/bird intermediate would show reptilian scales "half-way" transformed into feathers.

Because the fossil record show abrupt appearance and "stasis" (no change), the evolutionary theory of "punctuated equilibrium" was developed by Gould and Eldredge for speciation, which basically says we don't see evolution in the fossil record because it happens fast in small isolated groups. It is an argument from lack of evidence.

6. For those who place trust in the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible always speaks of special creation by God as a fact. If evolution were God's mechanism there would be no reason for Him to hide it in His revelation. Even Jesus Himself refers to the creation (and the global flood of Noah's time) as facts. The listed scripture references (NIV) include:

Col 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Heb 1:2 "... He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

Heb 1:10 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Jesus said: Mk 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

Also: Mt 24:37-39 "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

7. Finally, when scientific data is examined, a creationist interpretation can be usually be provided which is just as reasonable, if not superior to, an evolutionary interpretation.

Creationists say that degeneration in the universe, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, thwarts any proposed "molecules to man" upward development. This point was made on an earlier slide, but it is important enough to repeat more explicitly. Evolution/naturalism postulates that one of the most basic tenets of science has been repeatedly and continuously violated on a grand scale!

To reiterate, evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that the entropy DECREASE on the earth (increase in order and complexity as evolution is taking place, driven by the energy of the sun) has been more than overcome by the greater INCREASE in entropy on the sun (which is expelling considerable energy). Therefore, the sun-earth system as a single unit has obeyed the second law. However, this scenario is thermodynamically impossible!

When an entropy decrease is proposed (like evolution taking place), there must be postulated either a mechanism, machine or external influence, NOT JUST AN ENERGY FLOW, that causes the unnatural event to occur. The second law has been constructed in such a manner that entropy always increases when a natural spontaneous process occurs. Evolution has no directing external influence to overcome the effects of the second law. An energy flow like that provided by the sun is necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, for the second law to be overcome.

What do evolutionists say to prove their case? Steven Gould at Harvard University cites three things:

1. Micro-evolution and natural selection are proven, with the implication being that macro-evolution is just "more of the same". As stated earlier, creationists also agree that natural selection can lead to variation (the formation of non-interbreeding groups, different "species"), but the extrapolation is unwarranted and unjustified. Physical limits are soon reached beyond which no more change can be made (as illustrated by dog breeding, for example).

2. Examples of so-called transitional forms from the fossil record are cited. However, the "good" examples of transitional forms are few, and none are indisputable. If evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we could not even categorize them. In fact, it should not be possible to tell where one type of animal "ends" and another "begins". Look at the evolutionary "tree of life" and you will find only the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common intermediates (remember: dashed lines don't count!).

3. So-called "imperfections" in nature are cited. For example, why would God give the Panda bear a thumb that appears to be fairly useless? Or why do men have nipples? One answer is that just because we don't understand why something is the way it is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a good purpose or aesthetic value. This is a weak argument at best.

Can we rely on radiometric dating principles to prove that the earth is really very old, thereby providing the necessary time evolution requires if it is true?

The basic premise behind radiometric dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or other object containing the isotope (such as Potassium, K) decays over time into a daughter isotope (such as Argon, Ar) at a known rate (as measured in the laboratory), specified by its "half-life".

Some methods use isotopes that have a long half-life, and are therefore capable in theory of measuring long amounts of time, while others such as Carbon-14, have a relatively short half-life and can only measure recent history.

The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron" dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.

In Appendix 6 of the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science", by Henry Morris, he gives a table listing 68 global processes that indicate a "young" age for the earth (some of these are given on this slide). None of these estimates are overly valid, for the same reasons that radiometric dating is not overly valid. That is, the assumptions of a uniform rate through all time, zero initial daughter component, and a completely closed system through all time are unlikely to be valid. However, the important point is that the vast majority of physical processes that affect the entire earth tend to point to an earth that is much less than the 4.6 billion years old typically given as its age.

For example, the process of salt build up in the ocean has been studied extensively by creationists and is fairly well understood (ICR Impact No. 8, "Evolution: Oceans Say No!", Nevins). When the most favorable parameters (for evolutionists) are used (no initial salt content in the ocean and minimum amount of salt entry per year), a value of only 76 million years is obtained as the MAXIMUM possible age of the earth. Of course, more reasonable parameters can date the earth by this process into the approximate 10,000 year age of the earth that strict creationism teaches.

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!

Global flood evidences include:

• The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
• Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
• There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
• Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
• Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".
• Detailed study of Carbon-14 dating results provide a date for the flood of around 5,000 years ago, which agrees fairly well with the Biblical chronology (see Whitelaw, "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates", in "Speak to the Earth").

There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred.

The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world.

The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years.

The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest.

The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago.

Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered.

An analysis (by Whitelaw) of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

The "geologic column" illustrated in textbooks shows the supposed progression of animals from "simpler" forms in the oldest ages to increasingly more advanced forms in later ages, and is used to "prove" that evolution has actually taken place. One gets the impression that a core sample from any land surface on earth will contain the illustrated progression of fossils. However, such is not the case. "Only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even three (of the ten) geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" (Woodmorappe).

The column is seen to be a self-fulfilling reality based on circular reasoning, once it is realized that the definitive way in which rocks are dated is by the "index" fossils they contain. Yet the dating of the fossils is based on their presumed "stage of evolution" as determined by the age in which they are found. Fossils date rocks, rocks date fossils!

Creationists believe the column, to the degree it superficially illustrates a general tendency, is the result of the global flood. It represents a rapid, not "millions of years", deposition of all the plant and animal material existing on the earth at that time. Hydrodynamic sorting action, the tendency for destruction of similar habitats to occur in the same order around the world (near the ocean habitats overcome before inland habitats), and animal mobility considerations are sufficient to produce the general tendencies seen in the column. The recent volcanic explosion at Mt. St. Helens produced similar stratigraphic features to those found at "grand canyon" (but on a smaller scale) in a matter of only days and hours!

Suppose you were an engineer and were told that your job was to design a robot having the listed specifications. To build such a robot is today beyond our technological capabilities, and if we ever build such a robot, you can sure that a lot of planning and designing will have gone into the effort. People recognize the tremendous intelligence and skill that would be needed to perform such a task.

Yet, the task outlined on the previous slide HAS been performed. It is a "robot" we call an "ant". And even though an ant is marvelously designed and has many capabilities, it is trivial and unimportant compared with man. If the intelligence and planning needed "just" to build an ant/robot is so great, how much greater intelligence and planning must have been required to create the universe, the earth, and all living things! Evolution and naturalism, having no designer to supply intelligence, following no plan, is absolutely, totally incapable of having produced the world we know.

In summary, what are the top evidences in support of creation?

First, the Biblical revelation provides the only claimed "eyewitness account" of the creation of the universe.

Second, the well-known principle of "cause and effect" requires that there must have been some infinite "first cause" (which we label "God"), as an effect is always less than its cause.

Third, complexity never arises through the results of random, chance processes. This is a common sense observation consistent with known scientific laws. Living things are complex machines.

Fourth, nature exhibits a tremendous amount of design. The universe, the earth, and living things are not only highly complex, but have function and purpose. The ecosystem of the earth is finely tuned with every part of it related to the rest in a delicate balance.

All thanks to http://emporium.turnpike.net/

Fifth, the Bible documents a global flood as the cause for the fossils we find in the earth. Since God created each kind directly we would expect the fossil record to show the "abrupt appearance" of fully-formed plants and animals, which is what we find.

Finally, all theories of origins ultimately come down to either a supernatural or natural (no) cause. Evolution postulates that complex living systems self-developed from dead chemicals. Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated. A naturalistic big bang into people scenario is not justified by the actual scientific facts. Supernatural causes are a necessity!

Oh, the "complexity" arguments again.  Well, I've said this before and I'll say it again:

How is it more logical to accept the fact that a God complex enough to create the universe could just simply exist than to accept that the universe itself could just simply exist?

Wait, I know the answer to this one.  The Bible says so. 

Oh, it's the kind of freedom people had in Iraq during saddam's rule...or the same kind of freedom the people in Chile had when Pinochet was the dictator there.

"Do what I say...or Die"

What a nice god we have...he looks like one ihell of a tyrant to me.

Avitu666

what part of the bible did you read that God said "Do what I say...or Die", God gave us a set of rules to be followed, do you think that the US and other free country will be in order if theres no rules to be followed, its not like God control everything you do, I'm a biologist, I play basketball, I collect model kits, I play video games, God didn't came down from the heaven to tell to do all those things, jeeez! please have a little knowledge on the topic before you bash it.

[QUOTE="ZackMorris-"][QUOTE="-Jammo-"]

Even if you don't believe in the stories there are some wonderful meanings in there.

fidosim

Yeah like that one story where it tells me to stone everyone that's not christian or the one where god tortures this guy nearly to death to prove to satan that the guy will still worship him.  

Have you, like, actually read scripture?

Are u kidding me. Guys like that never actually read the Bible. They just make rash descions and judgements without even looking at the truth.

Some of the major reasons why evolution cannot be true are now presented.

 

1. Going from a Big Bang to a structured universe, from non-life to life, from simpler life to higher-order life all involve a tremendous increase in complexity. However, it is well-proven that when things are left to themselves, they always become LESS complex (they decay), the opposite of what evolution requires. This is known formally as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This tendency can only be overcome through the application of DIRECTED energy (such as using your muscles to put together the parts of a bicycle). Evolutionists argue that the sun provided more than enough energy to overcome the Second Law on the primitive earth, which is true, but this was not directed energy. To carry the above bicycle analogy forward, it is like saying that applying a blow torch at random to those bike parts should be enough to put the bike together!

 

The information content of a person (to describe the structure and operation of a person) is many, many times that of a bacterium (which is also far from simple), yet the field of Information Theory has shown that information, such as the coded programs in the biological cell, NEVER arises as a result of random, chance processes like those at the core of evolution.

 

2. The mechanism of neo-Darwinian evolution, natural selection acting on mutations, is totally inadequate. Almost all known mutations are harmful. The best (only?) "beneficial" mutation cited is sickle cell anemia (it can provide immunity to malaria). Also, natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present - it cannot create anything new!

3. The gap from non-life to life is very big. It requires both DNA and RNA to be present, working cooperatively, at the same time. Each of these structures are very complex. To get around this problem evolutionists say the first life may have been RNA-only, but this is pure speculation (and is still a significant problem). To date man has created only the simplest low-level building block of life in the laboratory (most of the amino acids). And if he does create life one day, it will involve the use of complex equipment and well thought out procedures, documenting the necessity for intelligence to make it happen. No "warm little pond" will do!

 

4. If evolution is this grand process that has transformed the simplest life into people, it should surely be demonstrable in the laboratory. In fact, extended experiments with fruit flies have produced many types of deformed fruit flies, but they remain fruit flies. Evolutionists will point to the large amount of time needed for evolution to work, but on the order of 10,000 generations of fruit flies have been bred and exposed to many times a naturally-occurring amount of mutation-inducing radiation, with no indication that any type of increase in complexity (upward evolution) is happening! These experiments show (like plant and animal breeding) that organisms have a certain capacity for change which cannot be exceeded.

5. If evolution cannot be documented in the laboratory, the only other place to find it would be in the record of the earth's history. However, the fossil record clearly shows that macro-evolution has not taken place. The oldest fossils of a particular plant or animal are always fully-formed (not some simpler version), and look identical in all significant aspects to the same plant or animal living today (although many fossil types are extinct).

 

The near-oldest rocks, so-called "Cambrian" rocks, contain many complex creatures, like Trilobites (now extinct). They are fully-formed, and there is not the slightest trace of a more primitive ancestor to be found in the older, "Pre-Cambrian" rocks. This period in evolutionary earth history is called the "Cambrian Explosion" because of the vast number of new life forms that appear abruptly.

 

What is true between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian ages is also true between every other age - no transitional forms are found! The most frequently cited "intermediate form", the reptile/bird "Archaeopteryx" is really a bird that has some reptilian features (like teeth). It has a "mosaic" of traits (some bird, some reptile), but each trait is fully-formed (including the feathers). There are animals alive today that are mosaics (e.g. the duckbill platypus). A true reptile/bird intermediate would show reptilian scales "half-way" transformed into feathers.

 

Because the fossil record show abrupt appearance and "stasis" (no change), the evolutionary theory of "punctuated equilibrium" was developed by Gould and Eldredge for speciation, which basically says we don't see evolution in the fossil record because it happens fast in small isolated groups. It is an argument from lack of evidence.

6. For those who place trust in the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible always speaks of special creation by God as a fact. If evolution were God's mechanism there would be no reason for Him to hide it in His revelation. Even Jesus Himself refers to the creation (and the global flood of Noah's time) as facts. The listed scripture references (NIV) include:

 

Col 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

 

Heb 1:2 "... He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

 

Heb 1:10 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

 

Jesus said: Mk 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

 

Also: Mt 24:37-39 "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

 

7. Finally, when scientific data is examined, a creationist interpretation can be usually be provided which is just as reasonable, if not superior to, an evolutionary interpretation.

Creationists say that degeneration in the universe, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, thwarts any proposed "molecules to man" upward development. This point was made on an earlier slide, but it is important enough to repeat more explicitly. Evolution/naturalism postulates that one of the most basic tenets of science has been repeatedly and continuously violated on a grand scale!

 

To reiterate, evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that the entropy DECREASE on the earth (increase in order and complexity as evolution is taking place, driven by the energy of the sun) has been more than overcome by the greater INCREASE in entropy on the sun (which is expelling considerable energy). Therefore, the sun-earth system as a single unit has obeyed the second law. However, this scenario is thermodynamically impossible!

 

When an entropy decrease is proposed (like evolution taking place), there must be postulated either a mechanism, machine or external influence, NOT JUST AN ENERGY FLOW, that causes the unnatural event to occur. The second law has been constructed in such a manner that entropy always increases when a natural spontaneous process occurs. Evolution has no directing external influence to overcome the effects of the second law. An energy flow like that provided by the sun is necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, for the second law to be overcome.

What do evolutionists say to prove their case? Steven Gould at Harvard University cites three things:

 

1. Micro-evolution and natural selection are proven, with the implication being that macro-evolution is just "more of the same". As stated earlier, creationists also agree that natural selection can lead to variation (the formation of non-interbreeding groups, different "species"), but the extrapolation is unwarranted and unjustified. Physical limits are soon reached beyond which no more change can be made (as illustrated by dog breeding, for example).

 

2. Examples of so-called transitional forms from the fossil record are cited. However, the "good" examples of transitional forms are few, and none are indisputable. If evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we could not even categorize them. In fact, it should not be possible to tell where one type of animal "ends" and another "begins". Look at the evolutionary "tree of life" and you will find only the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common intermediates (remember: dashed lines don't count!).

 

3. So-called "imperfections" in nature are cited. For example, why would God give the Panda bear a thumb that appears to be fairly useless? Or why do men have nipples? One answer is that just because we don't understand why something is the way it is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a good purpose or aesthetic value. This is a weak argument at best.

Can we rely on radiometric dating principles to prove that the earth is really very old, thereby providing the necessary time evolution requires if it is true?

 

The basic premise behind radiometric dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or other object containing the isotope (such as Potassium, K) decays over time into a daughter isotope (such as Argon, Ar) at a known rate (as measured in the laboratory), specified by its "half-life".

 

Some methods use isotopes that have a long half-life, and are therefore capable in theory of measuring long amounts of time, while others such as Carbon-14, have a relatively short half-life and can only measure recent history.

The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron" dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.

In Appendix 6 of the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science", by Henry Morris, he gives a table listing 68 global processes that indicate a "young" age for the earth (some of these are given on this slide). None of these estimates are overly valid, for the same reasons that radiometric dating is not overly valid. That is, the assumptions of a uniform rate through all time, zero initial daughter component, and a completely closed system through all time are unlikely to be valid. However, the important point is that the vast majority of physical processes that affect the entire earth tend to point to an earth that is much less than the 4.6 billion years old typically given as its age.

 

For example, the process of salt build up in the ocean has been studied extensively by creationists and is fairly well understood (ICR Impact No. 8, "Evolution: Oceans Say No!", Nevins). When the most favorable parameters (for evolutionists) are used (no initial salt content in the ocean and minimum amount of salt entry per year), a value of only 76 million years is obtained as the MAXIMUM possible age of the earth. Of course, more reasonable parameters can date the earth by this process into the approximate 10,000 year age of the earth that strict creationism teaches.

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!

 

Global flood evidences include:

• The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
• Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
• There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
• Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
• Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".
• Detailed study of Carbon-14 dating results provide a date for the flood of around 5,000 years ago, which agrees fairly well with the Biblical chronology (see Whitelaw, "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates", in "Speak to the Earth").

There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred.

 

The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world.

 

The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years.

 

The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest.

 

The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago.

 

Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered.

 

An analysis (by Whitelaw) of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

 

The "geologic column" illustrated in textbooks shows the supposed progression of animals from "simpler" forms in the oldest ages to increasingly more advanced forms in later ages, and is used to "prove" that evolution has actually taken place. One gets the impression that a core sample from any land surface on earth will contain the illustrated progression of fossils. However, such is not the case. "Only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even three (of the ten) geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" (Woodmorappe).

 

The column is seen to be a self-fulfilling reality based on circular reasoning, once it is realized that the definitive way in which rocks are dated is by the "index" fossils they contain. Yet the dating of the fossils is based on their presumed "stage of evolution" as determined by the age in which they are found. Fossils date rocks, rocks date fossils!

 

Creationists believe the column, to the degree it superficially illustrates a general tendency, is the result of the global flood. It represents a rapid, not "millions of years", deposition of all the plant and animal material existing on the earth at that time. Hydrodynamic sorting action, the tendency for destruction of similar habitats to occur in the same order around the world (near the ocean habitats overcome before inland habitats), and animal mobility considerations are sufficient to produce the general tendencies seen in the column. The recent volcanic explosion at Mt. St. Helens produced similar stratigraphic features to those found at "grand canyon" (but on a smaller scale) in a matter of only days and hours!

Suppose you were an engineer and were told that your job was to design a robot having the listed specifications. To build such a robot is today beyond our technological capabilities, and if we ever build such a robot, you can sure that a lot of planning and designing will have gone into the effort. People recognize the tremendous intelligence and skill that would be needed to perform such a task.

Yet, the task outlined on the previous slide HAS been performed. It is a "robot" we call an "ant". And even though an ant is marvelously designed and has many capabilities, it is trivial and unimportant compared with man. If the intelligence and planning needed "just" to build an ant/robot is so great, how much greater intelligence and planning must have been required to create the universe, the earth, and all living things! Evolution and naturalism, having no designer to supply intelligence, following no plan, is absolutely, totally incapable of having produced the world we know.

In summary, what are the top evidences in support of creation?

 

First, the Biblical revelation provides the only claimed "eyewitness account" of the creation of the universe.

 

Second, the well-known principle of "cause and effect" requires that there must have been some infinite "first cause" (which we label "God"), as an effect is always less than its cause.

 

Third, complexity never arises through the results of random, chance processes. This is a common sense observation consistent with known scientific laws. Living things are complex machines.

 

Fourth, nature exhibits a tremendous amount of design. The universe, the earth, and living things are not only highly complex, but have function and purpose. The ecosystem of the earth is finely tuned with every part of it related to the rest in a delicate balance.

All thanks to http://emporium.turnpike.net/

 

Fifth, the Bible documents a global flood as the cause for the fossils we find in the earth. Since God created each kind directly we would expect the fossil record to show the "abrupt appearance" of fully-formed plants and animals, which is what we find.

 

Finally, all theories of origins ultimately come down to either a supernatural or natural (no) cause. Evolution postulates that complex living systems self-developed from dead chemicals. Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated. A naturalistic big bang into people scenario is not justified by the actual scientific facts. Supernatural causes are a necessity!

 

psr388

WOW!

[QUOTE="psr388"]

Mt. Everest of Text 

syorks

WOW!

Did you really have to quote the entire thing? 

[QUOTE="psr388"][QUOTE="dainjah1010"]

So the story goes... God being the all-knowing, all-powerful being he is creates Adam and Eve knowing full well they would disobey him and cause original sin thus screwing all the humans that would come after. Apparently, some time later he wants to forgive humans for doing what he already knew they would do... but he can't just forgive us, he has to make a spectacle of it. So he sends his son, which also happens to be him, down to earth to be tortured; because violence is the only way to get your point across apparently.

Why God couldn't just forgive humans for doing exactly what he knew they would do in the first place is beyond any amount of reasoning... or better yet he could just have prevented original sin. But then you would actually have to buy into that whole garden of eden crap.

dainjah1010

Why God allowed man to sin:

God wanted man to love him of his own volition. In order to do that, God gave man free will to choose either to love Him and obey Him or not. God's love would be superficial and selfish if He forced man to love Him.

Also, God promised to redeem man when man fell.

Genesis 3:15- "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

For more information about that: http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/jesusandthepromises/promiseineden.asp

How can a loving god knowingly allow his most special creation to sin thereby condemning billions of people who had nothing to do with it to eternal torture? Is it just Christians whom get saved from an eternal lake of fire set up by your loving god? What about all the people who didn't grow up in the Christan west and haven't been brainwas... err taught about the Lord and Savior? Are they condemned just because they were brought up in a different region with different customs and religions?

Not only that but it seems you need to literally believe in Genesis for any of this to  even be plausible. And believing in that is actually pretty sad in a developed nation where we have science to explain things like the age of the earth, diversification of species, and even how planets form.  

I believe it was 1 John in which Paul describes accountability. Basically, those who have heard the law (the Bible) and have rejected it are more accountable than those who have never come across it. The creation of the world was so great that no human can really deny the existance of God. Based on their own actions in life, it is possible for God to still save them, but that is only His decision.

[QUOTE="billnye69"]

[QUOTE="ZackMorris-"]Wait god requires sacrifices? Geez this just proves christianity was based on old greek gods.ZackMorris-

He doesn't require sacrifices. The price for one sin is death, cuz sins are evil actions. Jesus was the perfect human, God accepted his sinless life as paying the price for all of humanities sins.

So he gives us free will, but when we use it we are punished.  That doesn't make sense,

Why give free will then punish us for eternity? 

[QUOTE="psr388"]

God offers a free way to escape from eternal damnation and to live for eternity in paradise.

That really sounds sadistic and selfish.

SpaceMoose

...instead of just putting everyone in paradise in the first place.

God couldn't have done that. Only people without sin can go to heaven. And since Jesus forgave all our sins we can also go to heaven if we believe in Jesus Christ and have a relationship with Him.

Im not religous so expect a non-religious answer from me.

Jesus... I don't know if he really was the guy up on the cross but I think he existed and he went from being a carpenter to a teacher of common sense...he must have gotten sick of people being annoying or he had a vision that he could do something about the world.

So he tells people to be generous and used the idea of God to back it up, which sounds reasonable to most people and sounded reasonable to people at the time. 

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."1

"Immanuel" literally means: "God with us." See also Matthew 1:23; Jesus was "God with us."

Isaiah 9:6: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

John 8:58-59: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

This is a powerful double claim from Jesus: first, that He pre-existed His human birth and was actually alive and present (as God) before Abraham; second, that His title was "I am" -- which was the same title used for Jehovah God in Exodus 3:14.

John 10:30-33: "'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

John 20:27-29: "Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"

Colossians 1:15-16; 2:9: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. . . . For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. . ."

The part with the Holy Spirit I may have worded badly. He is not separate as in unattached, but for some reason God chose to have three different, simultaneous form so that he could interact with man on different levels. The Father relates to man as a Father would, obviously, and provides reconciliation. The Son allows man to relate to man and provides salvation. The Spirit is a constant companion to the believer and provides comfort and introduction.

Although the word "Trinity" is never mentioned, there is evidence from scripture that the three exist as God.

Acts 2:33  (referring to Jesus) Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Acts 12:4-6- There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

The Holy Spirit must be part of that if he is reffered to as God. http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Names.of.the.Spirit.html

He (the Holy Spirit) is given names that only God could be given, and he is given attributes that only God could have.

We can't have multiple Gods. Even the Ten Commandments say that "You Shall have no other gods before me." If God is infinite as the Bible says, other gods would limit him. Because of that, God has to be one, but with three forms. I know that things like this do not necessarily make sense to men, but if God is supposed to be a higher being than man, is it possible to understand everything about him?

psr388

I don't want to explain all of these but I'll explain a few.

Isaiah 7:14 just called Jesus Lord. Many people called Jesus the "Lord", but God himself is "Lord of Lords". As for Immanuel that means "God with us", well of course God was with Jesus and all of us. But as we know, he was named Jesus and not Immanuel.

 John 10:30 says "I and the father are one". If you read the rest of the chapter, Jesus explains what he means. John 10:36 says: what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? (NIV) So, Jesus was telling the Jews that he was Gods' son, not God. Also, he expains later at John 17:21,22 while praying: that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one. So, was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.

Now about John 8:58. The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Exodus 3:14 used the term "I am" as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and that he would do what he promised. Many other bible translations use the term "I will be what I will be" for Exodus 3:14 and "I have been" for John 8:58. So, here the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to have seen Abraham although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. Jesus naturally wanted to tell them about his age, so he said that he "was alive before Abraham was born" - Simple English bible

Some translations insert the word "other" in Colossians 1:16 to say something different. It just depends on who you want to believe.

If Jesus is God, that would mean that Jesus is equal to God in power and everything else. Yet Jesus says that "The father is greater than I am". This should mean that God and Jesus are seperate beings and the Father has command over the Son.

Some of the major reasons why evolution cannot be true are now presented.

1. Going from a Big Bang to a structured universe, from non-life to life, from simpler life to higher-order life all involve a tremendous increase in complexity. However, it is well-proven that when things are left to themselves, they always become LESS complex (they decay), the opposite of what evolution requires. This is known formally as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This tendency can only be overcome through the application of DIRECTED energy (such as using your muscles to put together the parts of a bicycle). Evolutionists argue that the sun provided more than enough energy to overcome the Second Law on the primitive earth, which is true, but this was not directed energy. To carry the above bicycle analogy forward, it is like saying that applying a blow torch at random to those bike parts should be enough to put the bike together!

The information content of a person (to describe the structure and operation of a person) is many, many times that of a bacterium (which is also far from simple), yet the field of Information Theory has shown that information, such as the coded programs in the biological cell, NEVER arises as a result of random, chance processes like those at the core of evolution.

2. The mechanism of neo-Darwinian evolution, natural selection acting on mutations, is totally inadequate. Almost all known mutations are harmful. The best (only?) "beneficial" mutation cited is sickle cell anemia (it can provide immunity to malaria). Also, natural selection does just what is says. It only "selects" from what is already present - it cannot create anything new!

3. The gap from non-life to life is very big. It requires both DNA and RNA to be present, working cooperatively, at the same time. Each of these structures are very complex. To get around this problem evolutionists say the first life may have been RNA-only, but this is pure speculation (and is still a significant problem). To date man has created only the simplest low-level building block of life in the laboratory (most of the amino acids). And if he does create life one day, it will involve the use of complex equipment and well thought out procedures, documenting the necessity for intelligence to make it happen. No "warm little pond" will do!

4. If evolution is this grand process that has transformed the simplest life into people, it should surely be demonstrable in the laboratory. In fact, extended experiments with fruit flies have produced many types of deformed fruit flies, but they remain fruit flies. Evolutionists will point to the large amount of time needed for evolution to work, but on the order of 10,000 generations of fruit flies have been bred and exposed to many times a naturally-occurring amount of mutation-inducing radiation, with no indication that any type of increase in complexity (upward evolution) is happening! These experiments show (like plant and animal breeding) that organisms have a certain capacity for change which cannot be exceeded.

5. If evolution cannot be documented in the laboratory, the only other place to find it would be in the record of the earth's history. However, the fossil record clearly shows that macro-evolution has not taken place. The oldest fossils of a particular plant or animal are always fully-formed (not some simpler version), and look identical in all significant aspects to the same plant or animal living today (although many fossil types are extinct).

The near-oldest rocks, so-called "Cambrian" rocks, contain many complex creatures, like Trilobites (now extinct). They are fully-formed, and there is not the slightest trace of a more primitive ancestor to be found in the older, "Pre-Cambrian" rocks. This period in evolutionary earth history is called the "Cambrian Explosion" because of the vast number of new life forms that appear abruptly.

What is true between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian ages is also true between every other age - no transitional forms are found! The most frequently cited "intermediate form", the reptile/bird "Archaeopteryx" is really a bird that has some reptilian features (like teeth). It has a "mosaic" of traits (some bird, some reptile), but each trait is fully-formed (including the feathers). There are animals alive today that are mosaics (e.g. the duckbill platypus). A true reptile/bird intermediate would show reptilian scales "half-way" transformed into feathers.

Because the fossil record show abrupt appearance and "stasis" (no change), the evolutionary theory of "punctuated equilibrium" was developed by Gould and Eldredge for speciation, which basically says we don't see evolution in the fossil record because it happens fast in small isolated groups. It is an argument from lack of evidence.

6. For those who place trust in the Bible, it should be noted that the Bible always speaks of special creation by God as a fact. If evolution were God's mechanism there would be no reason for Him to hide it in His revelation. Even Jesus Himself refers to the creation (and the global flood of Noah's time) as facts. The listed scripture references (NIV) include:

Col 1:16 "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers of rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Heb 1:2 "... He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe."

Heb 1:10 "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Jesus said: Mk 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'"

Also: Mt 24:37-39 "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

7. Finally, when scientific data is examined, a creationist interpretation can be usually be provided which is just as reasonable, if not superior to, an evolutionary interpretation.

Creationists say that degeneration in the universe, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, thwarts any proposed "molecules to man" upward development. This point was made on an earlier slide, but it is important enough to repeat more explicitly. Evolution/naturalism postulates that one of the most basic tenets of science has been repeatedly and continuously violated on a grand scale!

To reiterate, evolutionists try to get around this problem by claiming that the entropy DECREASE on the earth (increase in order and complexity as evolution is taking place, driven by the energy of the sun) has been more than overcome by the greater INCREASE in entropy on the sun (which is expelling considerable energy). Therefore, the sun-earth system as a single unit has obeyed the second law. However, this scenario is thermodynamically impossible!

When an entropy decrease is proposed (like evolution taking place), there must be postulated either a mechanism, machine or external influence, NOT JUST AN ENERGY FLOW, that causes the unnatural event to occur. The second law has been constructed in such a manner that entropy always increases when a natural spontaneous process occurs. Evolution has no directing external influence to overcome the effects of the second law. An energy flow like that provided by the sun is necessary, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT, for the second law to be overcome.

What do evolutionists say to prove their case? Steven Gould at Harvard University cites three things:

1. Micro-evolution and natural selection are proven, with the implication being that macro-evolution is just "more of the same". As stated earlier, creationists also agree that natural selection can lead to variation (the formation of non-interbreeding groups, different "species"), but the extrapolation is unwarranted and unjustified. Physical limits are soon reached beyond which no more change can be made (as illustrated by dog breeding, for example).

2. Examples of so-called transitional forms from the fossil record are cited. However, the "good" examples of transitional forms are few, and none are indisputable. If evolution were true, there should be so many intermediates that we could not even categorize them. In fact, it should not be possible to tell where one type of animal "ends" and another "begins". Look at the evolutionary "tree of life" and you will find only the leaves, with speculative branches showing few if any common intermediates (remember: dashed lines don't count!).

3. So-called "imperfections" in nature are cited. For example, why would God give the Panda bear a thumb that appears to be fairly useless? Or why do men have nipples? One answer is that just because we don't understand why something is the way it is, doesn't mean it doesn't have a good purpose or aesthetic value. This is a weak argument at best.

Can we rely on radiometric dating principles to prove that the earth is really very old, thereby providing the necessary time evolution requires if it is true?

The basic premise behind radiometric dating is that a parent isotope in a rock or other object containing the isotope (such as Potassium, K) decays over time into a daughter isotope (such as Argon, Ar) at a known rate (as measured in the laboratory), specified by its "half-life".

Some methods use isotopes that have a long half-life, and are therefore capable in theory of measuring long amounts of time, while others such as Carbon-14, have a relatively short half-life and can only measure recent history.

The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".

Creationists have also advanced theories which may explain why rock samples appear to have old ages, and question the validity of the "isochron" dating procedure, which uses multiple samples. The bottom line is that radiometric dating procedures don't provide the consistent absolute dating method we would like to have.

In Appendix 6 of the book "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science", by Henry Morris, he gives a table listing 68 global processes that indicate a "young" age for the earth (some of these are given on this slide). None of these estimates are overly valid, for the same reasons that radiometric dating is not overly valid. That is, the assumptions of a uniform rate through all time, zero initial daughter component, and a completely closed system through all time are unlikely to be valid. However, the important point is that the vast majority of physical processes that affect the entire earth tend to point to an earth that is much less than the 4.6 billion years old typically given as its age.

For example, the process of salt build up in the ocean has been studied extensively by creationists and is fairly well understood (ICR Impact No. 8, "Evolution: Oceans Say No!", Nevins). When the most favorable parameters (for evolutionists) are used (no initial salt content in the ocean and minimum amount of salt entry per year), a value of only 76 million years is obtained as the MAXIMUM possible age of the earth. Of course, more reasonable parameters can date the earth by this process into the approximate 10,000 year age of the earth that strict creationism teaches.

Is there evidence that there was once a flood which covered the entire earth? If this were the case you would think the result would be obvious, and creationists say it is!

Global flood evidences include:

• The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.
• Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.
• There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.
• Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.
• Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".
• Detailed study of Carbon-14 dating results provide a date for the flood of around 5,000 years ago, which agrees fairly well with the Biblical chronology (see Whitelaw, "Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates", in "Speak to the Earth").

There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred.

The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world.

The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years.

The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest.

The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago.

Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered.

An analysis (by Whitelaw) of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.

The "geologic column" illustrated in textbooks shows the supposed progression of animals from "simpler" forms in the oldest ages to increasingly more advanced forms in later ages, and is used to "prove" that evolution has actually taken place. One gets the impression that a core sample from any land surface on earth will contain the illustrated progression of fossils. However, such is not the case. "Only 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even three (of the ten) geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" (Woodmorappe).

The column is seen to be a self-fulfilling reality based on circular reasoning, once it is realized that the definitive way in which rocks are dated is by the "index" fossils they contain. Yet the dating of the fossils is based on their presumed "stage of evolution" as determined by the age in which they are found. Fossils date rocks, rocks date fossils!

Creationists believe the column, to the degree it superficially illustrates a general tendency, is the result of the global flood. It represents a rapid, not "millions of years", deposition of all the plant and animal material existing on the earth at that time. Hydrodynamic sorting action, the tendency for destruction of similar habitats to occur in the same order around the world (near the ocean habitats overcome before inland habitats), and animal mobility considerations are sufficient to produce the general tendencies seen in the column. The recent volcanic explosion at Mt. St. Helens produced similar stratigraphic features to those found at "grand canyon" (but on a smaller scale) in a matter of only days and hours!

Suppose you were an engineer and were told that your job was to design a robot having the listed specifications. To build such a robot is today beyond our technological capabilities, and if we ever build such a robot, you can sure that a lot of planning and designing will have gone into the effort. People recognize the tremendous intelligence and skill that would be needed to perform such a task.

Yet, the task outlined on the previous slide HAS been performed. It is a "robot" we call an "ant". And even though an ant is marvelously designed and has many capabilities, it is trivial and unimportant compared with man. If the intelligence and planning needed "just" to build an ant/robot is so great, how much greater intelligence and planning must have been required to create the universe, the earth, and all living things! Evolution and naturalism, having no designer to supply intelligence, following no plan, is absolutely, totally incapable of having produced the world we know.

In summary, what are the top evidences in support of creation?

First, the Biblical revelation provides the only claimed "eyewitness account" of the creation of the universe.

Second, the well-known principle of "cause and effect" requires that there must have been some infinite "first cause" (which we label "God"), as an effect is always less than its cause.

Third, complexity never arises through the results of random, chance processes. This is a common sense observation consistent with known scientific laws. Living things are complex machines.

Fourth, nature exhibits a tremendous amount of design. The universe, the earth, and living things are not only highly complex, but have function and purpose. The ecosystem of the earth is finely tuned with every part of it related to the rest in a delicate balance.

All thanks to http://emporium.turnpike.net/

Fifth, the Bible documents a global flood as the cause for the fossils we find in the earth. Since God created each kind directly we would expect the fossil record to show the "abrupt appearance" of fully-formed plants and animals, which is what we find.

Finally, all theories of origins ultimately come down to either a supernatural or natural (no) cause. Evolution postulates that complex living systems self-developed from dead chemicals. Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated. A naturalistic big bang into people scenario is not justified by the actual scientific facts. Supernatural causes are a necessity!

psr388

[QUOTE="psr388"] (Everything he said. sorry not making a large quote)CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="psr388"] (Everything he said. sorry not making a large quote)Reddragon9288

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="psr388"] (Everything he said. sorry not making a large quote)Reddragon9288

You obviously know more than me, but why would you think something you can't see now would happen millions of years ago? You said that nowadays most mutations are harmful, "but back millions of years ago, it was who had the best genes that were expressed in a certain way to better survival." We don't see that today, but it happened millions of years ago? I'll ask again, why would you assume something happened millions of years ago if you can't see it today? And impressive job psr. Wow! Normal responses to. We can't answer it so we just denigrate it as ignorant. Get used to that psr. 

[QUOTE="Reddragon9288"] Yes but some is correct and some is wrong. especially the mutation part. It is true that mutations are most of the time harmful these days but back millions of years ago, it was who had the best genes that were expresed in a certain way to better survival. Don't try me on Biology that is my field of study in college as of now and I have a book on biology that talks about he begining of life and onward. Plus since this is off the main topic it'd be better for it to exist in a seporate thread. So in this case all I'm saying is that there is evidence of Jesus's existance in this world and acording to historians he was one of many sons of Joseph and was not I repeat not an only child. maheo30

You obviously know more than me, but why would you think something you can't see now would happen millions of years ago? You said that nowadays most mutations are harmful, "but back millions of years ago, it was who had the best genes that were expressed in a certain way to better survival." We don't see that today, but it happened millions of years ago? I'll ask again, why would you assume something happened millions of years ago if you can't see it today? And impressive job psr. Wow! Normal responses to. We can't answer it so we just denigrate it as ignorant. Get used to that psr.

Are you the same cap? There's another cap that is different from the other evolutionists. He tries to refute science with science. Everyone else I've seen just mocks but has no answers. Which tells me they are parrots just repeating what their prof told them in class. Cap is the only one I respect.
maheo30

And how do weeds prove evolution? There has always been weeds. maheo30

There is no concrete evidence that Jesus really existed other than the Bible.  As for him being the Son of God....:lol:

[QUOTE="maheo30"]Are you the same cap? There's another cap that is different from the other evolutionists. He tries to refute science with science. Everyone else I've seen just mocks but has no answers. Which tells me they are parrots just repeating what their prof told them in class. Cap is the only one I respect.
CptJSparrow

My apologies! You know, Captain Jack Sparrow? I assume that's what your name means. Cap for short. Ok, but you still didn't answer my question which tells me you may be a different Cap. Why assume, and that's what it is, that something we can't see today happened millions of years ago? That's saying, "I can't see it but I know it happened!" That is just belief. Not science. And why do you look at those things and think evolution but Dr. Carl Baugh looks at those things and sees science proving God's creation. It was the scientific evidence that made Dr. Baugh become a christian. He was an atheist and evolutionist, but the science proved to him there was a God. His website is www.creationevidence.org. If my link doesn't work and they don't sometimes then just google Dr. Carl Baugh.  

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="maheo30"]Are you the same cap? There's another cap that is different from the other evolutionists. He tries to refute science with science. Everyone else I've seen just mocks but has no answers. Which tells me they are parrots just repeating what their prof told them in class. Cap is the only one I respect.
maheo30

My apologies! You know, Captain Jack Sparrow? I assume that's what your name means. Cap for short. Ok, but you still didn't answer my question which tells me you may be a different Cap. Why assume, and that's what it is, that something we can't see today happened millions of years ago? That's saying, "I can't see it but I know it happened!" That is just belief. Not science. And why do you look at those things and think evolution but Dr. Carl Baugh looks at those things and sees science proving God's creation. It was the scientific evidence that made Dr. Baugh become a christian. He was an atheist and evolutionist, but the science proved to him there was a God. His website is www.creationevidence.org. If my link doesn't work and they don't sometimes then just google Dr. Carl Baugh.

[QUOTE="psr388"]

Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."1

"Immanuel" literally means: "God with us." See also Matthew 1:23; Jesus was "God with us."

Isaiah 9:6: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

John 8:58-59: "'I tell you the truth,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."

This is a powerful double claim from Jesus: first, that He pre-existed His human birth and was actually alive and present (as God) before Abraham; second, that His title was "I am" -- which was the same title used for Jehovah God in Exodus 3:14.

John 10:30-33: "'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"

John 20:27-29: "Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"

Colossians 1:15-16; 2:9: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. . . . For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. . ."

The part with the Holy Spirit I may have worded badly. He is not separate as in unattached, but for some reason God chose to have three different, simultaneous form so that he could interact with man on different levels. The Father relates to man as a Father would, obviously, and provides reconciliation. The Son allows man to relate to man and provides salvation. The Spirit is a constant companion to the believer and provides comfort and introduction.

Although the word "Trinity" is never mentioned, there is evidence from scripture that the three exist as God.

Acts 2:33 (referring to Jesus) Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the
promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Acts 12:4-6- There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

The Holy Spirit must be part of that if he is reffered to as God. http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Fellowship/Names.of.the.Spirit.html

He (the Holy Spirit) is given names that only God could be given, and he is given attributes that only God could have.

We can't have multiple Gods. Even the Ten Commandments say that "You Shall have no other gods before me." If God is infinite as the Bible says, other gods would limit him. Because of that, God has to be one, but with three forms. I know that things like this do not necessarily make sense to men, but if God is supposed to be a higher being than man, is it possible to understand everything about him?

dog64

I don't want to explain all of these but I'll explain a few.

Isaiah 7:14 just called Jesus Lord. Many people called Jesus the "Lord", but God himself is "Lord of Lords". As for Immanuel that means "God with us", well of course God was with Jesus and all of us. But as we know, he was named Jesus and not Immanuel.

John 10:30 says "I and the father are one". If you read the rest of the chapter, Jesus explains what he means. John 10:36 says: what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? (NIV) So, Jesus was telling the Jews that he was Gods' son, not God. Also, he expains later at John 17:21,22 while praying: that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one. So, was Jesus praying that all his disciples would become a single entity? No, obviously Jesus was praying that they would be united in thought and purpose, as he and God were.

Now about John 8:58. The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Exodus 3:14 used the term "I am" as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and that he would do what he promised. Many other bible translations use the term "I will be what I will be" for Exodus 3:14 and "I have been" for John 8:58. So, here the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to have seen Abraham although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. Jesus naturally wanted to tell them about his age, so he said that he "was alive before Abraham was born" - Simple English bible

Some translations insert the word "other" in Colossians 1:16 to say something different. It just depends on who you want to believe.

If Jesus is God, that would mean that Jesus is equal to God in power and everything else. Yet Jesus says that "The father is greater than I am". This should mean that God and Jesus are seperate beings and the Father has command over the Son.

Variation within a kind sure(Micro-evolution). There are all types of horses nowadays. Many of them are so interbred that certain kinds can no longer interbreed. We see kinds adapting to their environment all the time. But in the end it is still a horse. One person gave the Texas Cave Salamander, a couple weeks ago, as an example. But in the end it was still a salamander. The salamander didn't evolve into a python or a turtle. It was still a salamander. And no matter how many times you interbreed various kinds of horses, zebras, donkeys...ect., you will still get a variation OF THAT KIND of animal. It won't produce a dog or wolf or some mutant wolf-horse thing.
maheo30

Wait god requires sacrifices?  Geez this just proves christianity was based on old greek gods.ZackMorris-

Well it was the jews! And they were around before the greeks were! 

You want to call that macro you go right ahead. You still haven't shown how that horse-like creature changes into an entirely different kind. It is still a kind of horse no matter what you want to call it. And if that is the best example of macro then i feel sorry for evolutionists. This debate is boring me because all I get is micro to prove macro yet again. And we haven't even gotten to the other 4 types of evolution. If you are having this much trouble with macro then all is lost for cosmic, chemical, stellar & planetary, and organic.

_______________________________________________________

"Be ye therefore perfect as my Father which is in Heaven is perfect." -Matthew 5:48- Since God's standard to get to Heaven is absolute perfection then we are all lost.[Eph. 2:11-13] Only thru Christ can Heaven be possible.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="psr388"] (Everything he said. sorry not making a large quote)Reddragon9288

I agree that Joseph did have many other children but Jesus was not one of his literal sons.

The largest collection of straw manning science I have ever seen.CptJSparrow

Haha! I wanted to say something like that! :lol: