Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[iouae]

Why would there be evidence of a perfect world in the fossil layers when Creation and the Fall happened about 1656 years prior to Noah's Flood, which would have also destroyed the Garden of Eden?

1600 years is more than enough time after the Fall for all animals who became carnivorous to become so.

So, according to you, 27% ((1600/6000)x100) of earth's history had a chance to generate fossils containing now carnivorous animals which once were herbivorous.

In fact, strike that, fossils were formed IN the flood (by and large) according to YEC's, so the greater percentage of all fossil animals should be herbivorous, since they were "unfallen". And since pre flood animals were unfallen, I presume they lived for hundreds of years after their original creation

Yet FACTS on the ground and in the fossil record do not show that any carnivores were once herbivores, Sorry. Myth - busted.

 

[Stripe]

Any disagreements between Christian creationists you can think of? Like say, the age of things, the flood and its mechanisms, or even the shape of the earth? :think:

We'll take your tu quoque fallacy as a tacit admission that Darwinists can't agree on the driving force behind PT.

Continents are moving apart from mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?

Yes. Plate movement tends to be toward the Pacific Ocean.

You could put stakes either side of a purported spreading center and tie a rope between them and wait. You would never see any tightening. The only changes to the tightness would be due to earthquakes.

There are symmetrical reversals of magnetism either side of mid-oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?

Yes.

Magma is welling up at the mid oceanic ridges - do you dispute this fact?

Yes. There is magma all over the place. There's nothing particularly special about a ridge in this respect.

Mid-oceanic ridges are caused by underneath the crust magma upwellings due to below surface convection currents of moving magma. The mechanism moving continents is upwellings of sub-surface magma.

You promise? You're not going to add or switch mechanisms?

You're making the claim, so you give the reasoning, or the evidence for it. In what way did logic exist before humans (or any other animal capable of logical processing)?

So you figured out what "primacy" means? :chuckle:

You're making the claim that people created logic.:idunno:

Logic exists regardless of who is around to consider it. That you think people are required just makes you utterly foolish. :wave2:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

Logic exists regardless of who is around to consider it. That you think people are required just makes you utterly foolish.

So logic exists between Jupiter and Saturn. In what way does it exist?

Stuart

 

[iouae]

Yes. Plate movement tends to be toward the Pacific Ocean.

You could put stakes either side of a purported spreading center and tie a rope between them and wait. You would never see any tightening. The only changes to the tightness would be due to earthquakes.

Yes.

Yes. There is magma all over the place. There's nothing particularly special about a ridge in this respect.


You promise? You're not going to add or switch mechanisms?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading#cite_note-5

Earlier theories (e.g. by Alfred Wegener and Alexander du Toit) of continental drift postulated that continents "ploughed" through the sea. The idea that the seafloor itself moves (and also carries the continents with it) as it expands from a central axis was proposed by Harry Hess from Princeton University in the 1960s.[1] The theory is well accepted now, and the phenomenon is known to be caused by convection currents in the asthenosphere, which is ductile, or plastic, and the brittle lithosphere (crust and upper mantle).[2][clarification needed]

Significance[edit]
Seafloor spreading helps explain continental drift in the theory of plate tectonics. When oceanic plates diverge, tensional stress causes fractures to occur in the lithosphere. The motivating force for seafloor spreading ridges is tectonic plate pull rather than magma pressure, although there is typically significant magma activity at spreading ridges.[3] At a spreading center basaltic magma rises up the fractures and cools on the ocean floor to form new seabed. Hydrothermal vents are common at spreading centers. Older rocks will be found farther away from the spreading zone while younger rocks will be found nearer to the spreading zone. Additionally spreading rates determine if the ridge is a fast, intermediate, or slow. As a general rule, fast ridges have spreading (opening) rates of more than 9 cm/year. Intermediate ridges have a spreading rate of 5–9 cm/year while slow spreading ridges have a rate less than 5 cm/year.[4][5]:2

If they can so accurately measure sea floor spreading, then its a FACT.

Of course its another FACT that de-Nile is a river in Egypt.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wow, you are really dense...

So, according to you, 27% ((1600/6000)x100) of earth's history had a chance to generate fossils containing now carnivorous animals which once were herbivorous.

Now, I want you to think for a moment about everything I've said so far, and then try to fit it in with what you just accused me of.

Does it fit? No.

Iouae, how many fossils form today on a daily basis? Not very many, right? Like, you wouldn't see roadkill being fossilized on the side of the road, right?

How fast do fossils form?

In fact, strike that, fossils were formed IN the flood (by and large) according to YEC's,

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, but I'm a young earth creationist... And yes, that is EXACTLY what I've been saying THIS ENTIRE TIME!

so the greater percentage of all fossil animals should be herbivorous,

NO, you dunce. See below.

since they were "unfallen".

I never said that, and it would help you greatly if you would not make straw men against my position.

And since pre flood animals were unfallen,

Nope. Another straw man.

I presume they lived for hundreds of years after their original creation

This is the only thing you've gotten right so far, but not because of the argument you're making.

Yet FACTS on the ground and in the fossil record do not show that any carnivores were once herbivores, Sorry. Myth - busted.

Yet another straw man.

Perhaps you missed it, but here's what I said in my previous comment:

1600 years is more than enough time after the Fall for all animals who became carnivorous to become so.

Could you do me a favor and try to put my argument in your own words, to see if you even understand what I'm saying?

 

[6days]

Yet it was Jesus who made wolf to be carnivorous.
So Jesus made the world fallen?

You aren't very good with logic iouae. I think it was [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] who was trying to help you out earlier with non sequiturs?

Christianity is founded on the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. Gap-theorists seem unable to answer this basic question... why did Last Adam have to physically die?

 

[6days]

If they can so accurately measure ...ating facts from your beliefs about the past.

 

[Stripe]

Mid-oceanic ridges are caused by underneath the crust magma upwellings due to below surface convection currents of moving magma. The mechanism moving continents is upwellings of sub-surface magma.

You promise? You're not going to add or switch mechanisms?

The motivating force for seafloor spreading ridges is tectonic plate pull rather than magma pressure.

That didn't last long. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

So the "fallen" state of the earth today is a Christian myth. It's not even supported by scripture.

Romans 8 " 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

 

[iouae]

Romans 8 " 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

Yes creation looks FORWARD to that day, not BACK with nostalgia.

 

[iouae]

That didn't last long. :chuckle:

Yes, thank goodness. Read a book or take some courses.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes creation looks FORWARD to that day, not BACK with nostalgia.

You need to pay attention to what the verse says, vowels, something you seem to have an issue with.

Romans 8 " 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse

Past tense, vowels. Past tense.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, thank goodness. Read a book or take some courses.

Yup, still just as dense.

I'm reminded of what Pastor Enyart says...

"Stupid doesn't make you sin, but sin makes you stupid."

 

[iouae]

1600 years is more than enough time after the Fall for all animals who became carnivorous to become so.

Could you do me a favor and try to put my argument in your own words, to see if you even understand what I'm saying?

I know exactly what you are saying since you said it so articulately.

You said that by the flood, 1600 years after creation, animals would have finished "falling" - just in time to be fossilised.

Are you saying every "unfallen" vegetarian T. rex, lion and tiger, just happened never to get fossilised in the flood?

That's really bad luck for you YEC's because there goes your proof there ever were unfallen carnivores in their original, herbivore-created stage.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nope. Not what I said.

I know exactly what you are saying since you said it so articulately.

You said that by the flood, 1600 years after creation, animals would have finished "falling" - just in time to be fossilised.

Are you saying every "unfallen" vegetarian T. rex, lion and tiger, just happened never to get fossilised in the flood?

That's really bad luck for you YEC's because there goes your proof there ever were unfallen carnivores in their original, herbivore-created stage.

Try again.

 

[iouae]

Romans 8 " 20 Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, 21 the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay.

Let's see what Romans 8 really says in a real Bible...

Rom 8:19
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23
And not only they, but ourselves also,

It says (BIBLE FACT) nothing about creatures ever being all herbivores.
It says (BIBLE FACT) nothing about them all being changes or degraded at some stage in the past.
It says (BIBLE FACT) nothing about after the fall, God made the birds and bees and critters subject to vanity.
It says (BIBLE FACT) that from the beginning they were made subject to vanity, meaning out of corruptible flesh.
It says (BIBLE FACT) that some time in the future they will be delivered from dying - the Bible does not say how.
You ASSUME that because the whole creation groans, that God changed it from the original (non-groaning) creation to a granny one. When you ASSUme something it makes U something.

Being made subject to vanity, simply means being made mortal and out of flesh. As Solomon said, vanity of vanities, all is vanity. And it was created that way so that we could aspire to being made of something more permanent one day, viz. spirit beings.

It amazes me how you misread scripture 6days.

 

[iouae]

Nope. Not what I said.



Try again.

Why bother, I am not paid to educate you, or Stripe, or 6days.

 

[iouae]

Yup, still just as dense.

I'm reminded of what Pastor Enyart says...

"Stupid doesn't make you sin, but sin makes you stupid."

He should know, because he could not explain the changing magnetic strata, moving like two escalators out from the mid-oceanic ridges. He can have ever so much education, but the real Phd's, and the facts on the ground, are unimpressed by him.

 

[iouae]

Nowhere in the Bible, in Genesis, does it speak about God going around and changing herbivores to carnivores, because Eve ate a bit of fruit.

No ecosystem anywhere in the world or in the fossil record has producers (green plants), primary consumers (herbivores) - and thats it - no secondary consumers, no food chain longer than 2 organisms.

So neither the Bible nor the FACTS on the ground support this YEC hypothesis.

Food chains normally have many secondary consumers (omnivores, carnivores) to keep the numbers of herbivores in check, and to weed out the weaker ones so they don't die from old age, or some lingering death.

But YEC's and "fallen" Christians have this idealistic notion that somehow killing and eating animals is "wrong". No doubt they debate this after church, over a nice big steak. Their notion of a "good" God is one who belongs to PETA.

There is also no genetic mechanism whereby herbivores can become carnivores, or ever have done this anywhere in the fossil record.

If one thinks about it, God would have had to alter every single animal he had created in 6 days, and changed it to a fallen stat. No record of God ever doing that. God rested from His creation on the 7th day because He was DONE.

So the idea that animals were all originally herbivores is a Christian myth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not only are you dense, you're hilariously misinformed. You should go and research what our (YEC) position is before you try to argue against it, because almost everything you've said so far is either a straw man or it's just plain wrong.

Nowhere in the Bible, in Genesis, does it speak about God going around and changing herbivores to carnivores, because Eve ate a bit of fruit.

No ecosystem anywhere in the world or in the fossil record has producers (green plants), primary consumers (herbivores) - and thats it - no secondary consumers, no food chain longer than 2 organisms.

So neither the Bible nor the FACTS on the ground support this YEC hypothesis.

Food chains normally have many secondary consumers (omnivores, carnivores) to keep the numbers of herbivores in check, and to weed out the weaker ones so they don't die from old age, or some lingering death.

But YEC's and "fallen" Christians have this idealistic notion that somehow killing and eating animals is "wrong". No doubt they debate this after church, over a nice big steak. Their notion of a "good" God is one who belongs to PETA.

Sorry folks - just ain't so.