Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???

Expand Messages
  • Charles Creager Jr.
    ... From: Steve Muscat To: Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re:
    Message 1 of 30 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Steve Muscat <stevomuscat@...>
      To: <CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 12:05 PM
      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???



      >
      > OK......the thing I want to know is, now please be bluntly honest
      > here.....is there ANY evidence in the geological column/ fossil record to
      > show a global flood/ catastrphic event?
      >

      How about the existence of the fossil record. The geological column was
      invented by Charles Lyell in 1830 in an attempt to explain away the evidence
      for a global flood as an extension of James Hutton's theory of
      uniformitarianism. Before this scientists explained the rock layers and
      fossils in terms of the Flood. By the way the invention of uniformitarianism
      was predicted by II Peter 3:3-6.

      3. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
      walking after their own lusts,
      4. And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers
      fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
      creation.
      5. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
      heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
      water:
      6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

      So in their effort to discount the Bible, they succeeded if fulfilling it.

      Charles Creager.
    • Matthew Nelson
      Mark, Mark writes: Notice the part that clearly says cursed is the ground for thy sake . Clearly the ground was and is cursed after Adam s sin,which implies
      Message 2 of 30 , Sep 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark,
         
        Mark writes: Notice the part that clearly says "cursed is the ground for thy sake". Clearly the ground was and is cursed after Adam's sin,which implies that it was NOT cursed before this time frame or this passage would mean nothing.Therefore, the uniformitarian view, from where the OE view arises, is learly not compatible with scripture.The natural laws on some level must have changed for land that was not cursed prior to now be cursed.
         
        My response: Please explain to me how the curse of the ground leads into the conclusion that the natural laws changed. That seems completely illogical to me. The ground qualifies as a "material possession" that can be corrupted through man's sin. The natural laws do not change when the ground becomes wretched, and no where does the passage cited even suggest this.
         
        Mark writes: Therefore, one can not honestly in his heart call himself as child of God and hold to an OE view for it clearly is not written.
         
        My response: It seems to me that I and many other OECs disprove your conclusion. Please refer to my post in which I talk about brotherly love...
         
        Thank you for your time,
        Matthew
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: KRINKS@...
        Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 10:03 PM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Question???
         
        This passage about sums it all up.

        Genesis 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto
        the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I
        commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the
        ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of
        thy life;

          Notice the part that clearly says "cursed is the ground for thy
        sake". Clearly the ground was and is cursed after Adam's sin,which
        implies that it was NOT cursed before this time frame or this passage
        would mean nothing.Therefore, the uniformitarian view, from where the
        OE view arises, is clearly not compatible with scripture.The natural
        laws on some level must have changed for land that was not cursed
        prior to now be cursed.Therefore, one can not honestly in his heart
        call himself as child of God and hold to an OE view for it clearly is
        not written.
           

                                                   Mark 



        Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
      • ibhayre@aol.com
        In a message dated 8/30/01 10:55:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I won t fail to answer, try them on me Phillip
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 8/30/01 10:55:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
          KRINKS@... writes:


          It was a great deal of the "little things" which young-earth
          creationism overwhelmingly failed to answer.


            I won't fail to answer, try them on me
                                Phillip
        • ibhayre@aol.com
          OK AJ, this is the kind of discussion I prefer. I ll do some research and get back to you OK. Phillip
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            OK AJ, this is the kind of discussion I prefer. I'll do some research and get
            back to you OK.
                                             Phillip
          • Chris Ashcraft
            AJ - You will have to forgive my delays in response. I had hand surgery last week, and typing must be minimal for the moment, but I will want to further
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              AJ - You will have to forgive my delays in response. I
              had hand surgery last week, and typing must be minimal
              for the moment, but I will want to further discuss the
              complexity of the geological column, and the
              difficulties with the single flood interpretation..

              --- AJ Miner <miner1955@...> wrote:

              > It is funny you say this, because when I look at the
              > world around me, the
              > world is clearly older than 10,000 years old and did
              > not suffer from a
              > worldwide deluge.

              The deposits beneath our feet are not obvious in
              garden states like the pacific northwest where
              biological recovery has been successful, but further
              south in Utah, New Mexico (where I grew up), and
              Arizona all you see around you is a massive flood
              wasteland. New Mexico contains numerous monuments to
              the flood such as tremendous caverns and evaporite
              deposits (White Sands). Utah is almost nothing but
              flood sculpture...

              > The world is not "covered in flood sediment".
              > Doubtless there are sediments
              > that are the results of at least localized floods,
              > but floods are not
              > responsible for many sediment formations at all.

              It is common knowledge that the entire world is
              covered in sediment. Every geologist knows it, and
              every geology text book contains maps that show what
              layers are exposed in various regions.

              National Geologic Map Database
              http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/

              Except where erosion and uplift has removed these
              deposits there is not one square inch that is not
              covered in thick layers of sediment. In most areas,
              they are hundreds of feet thick and in others they
              reach thousands.

              The paradox lies with the fact that current
              depositionary mechanisms that reach high volumes are
              localized, and yet everywhere we look there are
              hundreds of feet of sediment stretched out into vast
              flood plains.

              Every continent exists as plateaus that has been
              deformed by uplift and erosion, and every plateau is a
              flood plain. The continents exist as flood plains
              possessing unspeakable volumes of flood deposits that
              stretch from one shore to the other..

              These deposits and the existence of modern terrestrial
              life remains a paradox. Every square inch of the
              planet was covered by sandstone, limestone, and shale,
              and yet they must claim there was no global flood
              because animals remain...


              =====
              Chris Ashcraft
              Creation Science Resource
              http://www.geocities.com/ashcrac

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
              http://im.yahoo.com
            • ibhayre@aol.com
              In a message dated 8/30/01 3:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... The C14 in the atmosphere is supposed to have reached equalibrium long ago. It apparently has
              Message 6 of 30 , Sep 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 8/30/01 3:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                miner1955@... writes:


                This argument is interesting because it demonstrates how susceptible YECs
                are to inconsistencies. YEC's usually argue against uniformitarianism and
                in
                favor of catastrophism, but with C14, YECs do the exact opposite. They
                argue
                that the rate of the creation of C14 in the atmosphere is absolutely
                uniform. Ironically, the opposite is true. Scientists have shown the rate
                of
                C14 creation has fluctuated significantly. Here is a quote from a
                scientist,
                "The idea [that the fluctuating magnetic field affects influx of cosmic
                rays, which in turn affects C-14 formation rates] has been taken up by the
                Czech geophysicist, V. Bucha, who has been able to determine, using samples
                of baked clay from archeological sites, what the intensity of the earth's
                magnetic field was at the time in question. Even before the tree-ring
                calibration data were available to them, he and the archeologist, Evzen
                Neustupny, were able to suggest how much this would affect the radiocarbon
                dates." In essence, fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field alters the
                rate of creation of C14. This has been proven with analysis of tree rings
                going back 9,000 years.


                  The C14 in the atmosphere is supposed to have reached equalibrium long
                ago. It apparently has not because the earth is young. the earths magnetic
                field is slowly declining in strength and although the rate might vary
                slightly it is fairly uniform and at the current rate if we went back say a
                million years or so it would have been strong enough to generate heat intense
                enough to make life impossible. I'm writing this from memory, but if you need
                me to be more specific I will have to research it.
                                             Phillip
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.