Blind Faith

Why are there so many people out there with blind faith? Do you know what I mean? They say the world is billions of years old, yet they cannot support there claims with scientific evidence, but rather, they support it with unknown assumptions. The evolutionist and the creationist both have the same facts, do we not? The same biology, geology, anthropology, the same fossil record, etc. So how do we come up with 2 different views? The facts are the same, however, our interpretation of the facts are not.
How do you know the earth is billions of years old? Where you there? Did you see the layers of the earth form? The statement which should follow by the evolutionist would be, "You weren't there either". No I was not, but according to the revealed word of God which is in the bible, I can then form a starting point, and by using scientific evidence, support my belief. Can the evolutionist say the same? What time line would the evolutionist go by? Obviously a timeline they made themselves, who weren't there, who didn't see, who can only guess.GEOLOGY:
What about the Grand Canyon and the Cambridge Explosion? What about fossils having to be formed in a rapid environment(even the leading evolutionist, even those who followed Sagan are in agreement). Noah and the flood is the only rational explanation which would explain how billions of dead things, burried in rock layers are present at the Grand Canyon and not a Pulitzar prize winning argument(awarded to him by humanist believers, not the act of a scientific explanation) concerning an ice glazier melting before the supposed ice age. Airs Rock in Australia is where the evolutionist turned after the Cambridge Explosion in hopes of digging deeper, in fact the deepest which has ever been dug till that time, all in hopes of finding evidence on the evolutionist sign. But did they find it? No. They found fossils of highly evolved organisms with dual semi-hemisphere brains and 5 hearts and digestive sysems, or to the unaware, earthworms. They also found sea creatures. A bit odd don't you think, seeing how the Airs Rock is in the middle of the Desert? Once again, the flood. Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980 guess what happened? A stumbling block for evolutionist theory of individual layers of rock forming in appoximately 1,000 years, that's what happened. Mt. Saint Helen formed in one particular spot, over 25 foot of new rock which consisted of literally thousands of layers, some of which were only millimeters thick. IT TOOK ONLY 3 HOURS TO FORM. Pangea, the single continent which was broken up catastrophically as the Flood began. A break of tectonics at the Grand Canyon area would explain the erosion of the rocks which formed the canyon along with mysterious layers of the Evolutionsist Geographic Scale being absent (skip from 1 to 5, where did 2,3 and 4 go?).BIOLOGY:
First off, there is no known natural law, no known process, and no known sequence of events where matter has ever risin to greater information. This makes evolution at the very foundation impossible. The evolutionists' only re-cant would be, "those random sequence of events and chance did in fact happen, we just don't have the evidence to support it. Or perhaps, it only happened once, so we wouldn't see it again. Ah, you mean you have missing links, so what do you have? Nothing. What do you label them as? Missing. How fitting. Even if you tried to say that given enough time and enough luck you could get a code, or a language, or a gnome, that proves nothing. You have to have a code system for the code to mean anything, and have to have a language for that to mean anything. You would need greater information and greater information to have either, and only a greater intelligence with greater information could make either system. Isn't God wonderful? People produce people, and horses produce horses, and elephants produce elephants, although each may have a great variation within there given kind, they still remain the same kind. There is no transition from one kind to another kind, nor is there any scientific proof for one single case in favor of the evolutionist. Dinosaurs cannot be proven to have lived millions of years ago. If you take the bible, and look in Genesis, you see that animals were created on the 6th day of creation, with Adam and Eve. There fore when Noah put his approximately 16,000 animals(two of each KIND,genetics 101) on the Ark, Dinosaurs would have been present. Can I prove it with clear cut evidence? Of course not, but I can use the Bible as the framework, therefore support my belief with real science(Geology, Zoology, Biology, etc). Evolution requires information gaining, but all we see in science is information loss(reference to genetics).Anthropology:
"Lucy was found to have bones of a "monkey", not a homosapien, and a skull as a monkey as well. It needs to be stated some Darwinians still hold belief that "LUCY" is in fact a transition(very, very few), however, most evolutionist today believe otherwise. "Habilis" was formed of multiple bones, and is best described as a mess. However, some evolutionist still believed the possibility of a transition until cat scans of Habilis' skull determined the Inner Balance organ to be that resembling a baboon, NOT a human. So "LUCY" and Habilis are 0-2 so far. Erectus, BoxGrove, Neanderthal, and Modern man are 100% agreed by both sides to be fully human. Erectus is believed to be Adam and Eve's decendants, according to Creationist. There are some variations between there skull/brow features, and slight difference in his lower extremities, however, this falls well within Gene variation and adaptation in a particual KIND. Just in case anyone was wondering, there are an amazing 10 to the 80 squared known atoms in the universe. You can fit 10 to the 130 squared electrons in the known universe. But get this, every single creature has a gene variation of approximately 10 to the 2017! Just food for thought.SPACE:
If the earth is billions of years old, according to the current rate which the Sun is giving off energy, the Sun should have burnt out long ago, or the Sun would have to be so big billions of years ago that the Sun would take up most of our known planetary system. Where would the earth come from then? What about top soil? The evolutionist say it takes 1,000 years to form an inch of top soil by the forces of errosion, etc. If the earth is billions of years old, why do we only have 6-9 inches of top soil? Maybe it erroded into the Ocean? If so, the Ocean would have to have literally miles of sediment, but there is only .056 miles! If the earth is billions of years old there should have been an enormous amout of moon dust on the moon when we first landed on it, yet, there was only 1/4 inch. What about Salt in the ocean? If the earth was billions of years old there should be a significantly higher % of nickel, salt, and other sediments in the ocean, yet there is not. C14, and other radiological measuring devices, all involving measuring decay rates/half-lifes: All the dates assumes on a known ratio in the past with a stable condition of the particle(i.e., has is been acting with any other elements which would destroy current assumptions), etc, etc, etc. What I'm saying is this, if you weren't there to see the currect ratio, or see that the other elements remained untouched by outside variances, or to see any Catastrophes which could have changed, even your first assumptions, how can you know anything at all? Besides, when radiological/active materials decay, they turn into Helium by-products, so, if the earth was billions of years old there would be enough Helium in atmosphere to make us talk like Donald Duck. AND THE EVOLUTIONISTS' nightmare for last, the Magnetic field. I personally believe in the Dynamic-decay theory. Anyways, if the earth were billions of years old, the Magnetic Field would be gone billions of years ago! If you extrapulate backwards, the latest possible date you can get is 100,000 years old, HOWEVER, that is the latest you could get with all the variables at the far ends of the scale. The AVERAGE age you would get is 10,000 years. All these certainly support a young earth over an old one.So what have I done? I have showed that by using the Bible as a guide, the creationist is able to map out the past, using real scientific evidence to support there beliefs.Does the science of the Evolutionist hold up? NO. It's Biology, Geology, Anthropology, Zoology, etc, all fail to support there beliefs with real science.It's ironic, long ago Evolutionist called Creationist people with blind faith, and no science, but in present times, it's obvious that Evolutionist are the one with a blind faith, with no science, and no evidence. Evolution seems to be a Religion, one which is dedicated to Humanism and Materialism, not based on science at all. Man makes the rules, not God. Well my friend, there is a miriad of real scientific evidence that creationist do in fact possess, and they all point to the Relevation of God, in whom this creationist humbly serves and loves. May the Lord bless you all, no one exempt, and bring each one of us HIS knowledge, according to HIS will, if we would only ask.In Jesus Christ's name, Amen.

Did you even bother reading any of the threads on this board before you posted? Every point you have written about has been dealt with at some point; I find it hard to believe that you haven't been able to find a discussion on any of the points you have posted.

Since you appear to have not even chosen a nickname, may we refer to you as "Drive-By Poster?" And is "an ice glazier" a workman who installs windows in Manitoba in the wintertime?[This message has been edited by Coragyps, 12-28-2003]

Shooting blanks though. ------------------
Common sense isn't

Rarely ,if ever, have I seen someone show so little understanding of science in so few words. I will bet long odds that the person will not post even a second time.Just as well though since this person would probably not survive the wounds to their egos.Drive-by shooter indeed!------------------
Chemical kinetics firmly restrains time's arrow in the taut bow of thermodynamics for milliseconds to millennia.

quote:

---

Why are there so many people out there with blind faith?

---

Because some people are either too lazy or unwilling to use their brains.Your post is right up there with being one of the most ill-informed I've ever read and it appears all you haven't done any reading on the subjects at all. It's blatantly obvious you are completely ignorant on the subjects you have posted about. Cambridge Explosion???Blind faith, indeed!

It looks as if Kent Hovind has finally been persuaded to drop by the EvCForum at long last!Brian.

So the Evlolutionist answer speaks for itself, words, yet no science. You ever notice how at a museum, when you see the exhibit, the only evidence of evolution is on the exhibit case?For this discussion I will encompass my scientifically supported views about Creationism thru Geology. My support for Creationism comes from the findings of Dr. Gary Parker, former Evolutionist of over 30+ years.Lets take a look once again at the Grand Canyon and the "Cambrian Explosion"(cambrian rock being identified as some of the earliest on the earth). How was the canyon formed? By millions of years and a little bit of water? What about by a short amout of time and a whole bunch of water? If evolution is true, where would you find fossils of complex life forms? Well, it's obvious, the younger layers of rock and earth, i.e, the top layers, would contain such fossils, right? No. The deepest layers contained these fossils. How? Scientific evidence concludes that if these fossils existed in the foundational layers of rock and sediment in the canyon,(the oldest rock, billions, and millions of years old)then complex life must have existed at the same period as the rocks. How could this be billions of years ago? A young earth seems much more likely. Well, if your an evolutionist you must be thinking, "where are the anscestors to these fossils?" They have must be farther down in the rock, right? No. You find fossils such as squids, with intact eyes. Those squid eyes where very complex, so complex that they closely relate to the human eye of modern man. How is that possible? Well, evolutionist would say, "that's because we have common anscestors." Well in fact, the squid is not thought to be an anscestor of the Man, but yet, the eyes are quite close to our own. What about the living fossils that have been found in the Grand Canyon? How is it possible if the Earth is billions of years old to contain a fossil which is seen today, exactly as it was presevered millions of years ago? There are over 500 world wide living fossils today. Will the evolutionist take the stance that every single one of those 500 evolved to there maximum potential millions of years ago? Isn't it much more likely that the Earth has a young age?Well, Francis Craig, Pulitzar winner for DNA, who is an evolutionist, has changed his stance on evolution. O? How so? He has written a book which tells us all about how life formed out side the planet, somewhere in the universe, and found its way on Earth. Of course, most evolutionist tend to stick to earth as the starting point, and therefore, they look to another explanation which could explain the depth and sure mass(length,width, etc)of the Canyon. What have they found? Oddly enough, it was another Pulitzar winner(I do not remember his name, nor do I care to look him up)who hypothosised that a massive Ice Glazier had broke, therefore creating the Grand Canyon. The shear amount of water from a glacier to accomplish this feat seems impossible, if not improbable, especially when you look at the shear amount of force + heat which would be needed to carve out and dislodge, and then reinsert that same dislodgement back into the harder rocks of the Earth. It is a common idea(even amongst evolutionist)that to move such massive amounts of rock, and to carry them, and relocate, and re-insert them would involve heated processes along with water. Doesn't it seem much more likely that the Earths crust ruptured, then sent massive amounts of water,magma, and other particles which would easily cut and forge the Earth? Yes, I said water erupt from the Earth. It is common that Earth contains water inside itself. This also correlates with the Bible, when it says, ...fountains of the great deep burst forward. Besides, it's a common fact when volcanoes erupt, that up to 60-70% of the sediments being forced out in the explosion is none other than Water. Thats why the eruption occurs in the first place. Super condensed and pressurized water, once it hits a certain point, is forced out of an opening(one which is made over time with the contant pressure of water against it, slowly deteriating the surrounding sediments till finally released). Also, some evolutionist were fully convinced that fossils of an old Earth did in fact exist(ones without complex life in deep rock). So they began to dig in the pre-Cambrian rock in Australia, some of the oldest rock known on earth. Did they find what they were looking for? No. They found jelly fish and earthworms. Both are complex life forms. This also proves that it takes drastic and severe events which occur very fast, not slow, in order to create a fossil. Jelly fish, and other fish wither away very fast. The sediment must be soft enough to trap a fish. The entire Idiatrical Fossil Bed is believed to be formed rapidly(hundreds of miles). Where is the evidence in support of Evolution? Seems like a global flood, which is revealed to us in the Bible, is a much more likely event. Once again, a Young Earth.Lets take a look at how evolutionist measure the age of the Earths rocks. Actually, I will cut it shorter than the methods themselves, and get directly to there findings. Using the Evolutionist dating methods, and Geographic timelines(which are based on such methods), a measure was made of the early cambrian rocks upwards(vague, yes, but just showing an example of continuing discrepancies). The rock layers were dated at 250,000,000 millions years. Next, using the identical method, rock layers where then measured from later layers, or younger earth. These layers where dated at 300,000,000 million years old. How is this possible? Simple. The system doesn't work. There are many more examples of such error. Take carbon 14 Dating. How is it possible that carbon based materials, of the same kind, in the same cave, and the same environment, are dated over several thousands apart from one another? Simple, the methods don't hold up to science, but are based on assumptions which cannot be calculated due to the lack of knowledge and information.If you want to talk about science then talk about it. I am not throwing some Bible bending message which is Religion only. I am simply using the Word of God, who has always been there, and who knows everything, as the framework for my science, and for my life. When you take science, and look at all the evidence provided from that science, it clearly supports my beliefs in God, and in his Word.II Peter 3: 4-6
2 Peter 3
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:I pray that God will lead those who wish to be led.In Jesus Christ's name, Amen.

Hey, NoName, instead of pasting in long essays, would you like to discuss any of the points you bring up?

Hi, Well you were asked to read some of the other threads at the forum here that answer all your oft-refuted arguments, why should people keep repeating themselves when you could just do a little reading of previous messages? So we will overlook the Cambridge explosion then? Identified by whom? Well what about a short amount of time and a lot of water! Would the Grand canyon have formed as is by this method, your evidence please? What is a complex life form, how is it defined? Why? How could it not be? Which fossils are you talking about? Young as in how old? (Ussher's 6000 years?) Why would an evolutionist think this? So in your opinion, evolution is always a ‘step up’ the ladder so to speak? Some examples please? How is it impossible? Is there, such as?Once you answer these questions I have a lot more. I am not a scientist and I would really like you to explain your findings. You actually haven't supported a single statement you have made. Try supporting your claims with some evidence, this is basic high school practice and you seem to be unaware of it.Brian.

quote:

---

I pray that God will lead those who wish to be led.

---

You know, NoName, neither of your posts contains a single true statement. You're just making God look silly.

Are you speaking, perhaps, of Francis Crick, Nobel prize winner for his work on DNA? Or Jenny Craig, weight-loss guru? Or someone else? You are going nowhere awfully fast, Innominate.Or you're a troll.

quote:

---

...Cambridge Explosion?

---

I think you mean Cambrian explosion. Since you don't say what the problem is, I can only assume. I suspect that you have a problem with life 'suddenly appearing.' In truth, plently of life precedes the 'Cambrian explosion' it's just that most of that life had no hard parts (bones, teeth, etc.) and soft parts are extremely hard to preserve in the fossil record.It's possible that a change in the chemistry of the ocean and/or atmosphere, or the way life was able to process certain elements, or a climate change (rising temperatures thawing an ice age), allowed life to produce hard parts and these hard parts in turn allowed life to diversify and spread into other environments. Because hard parts are much more easily preserved in the fossil record, and they happen to have shown up rather suddenly IN THE ROCK RECORD (and that is geologically-speaking!), people who don't understand the context in which the fossils appear think they all show up at the same time. That is patently false.See these websites for information on: The PrecambrianThe Cambrian Explosion

quote:

---

What about fossils having to be formed in a rapid environment(even the leading evolutionist, even those who followed Sagan are in agreement).

---

No one disputes the fact that rapidly buried organisms are better candidates for preservation, but there are many more ways to bury organisms quickly than a global flood. The ocean is a dynamic environment, especially the shallow marine environment, which also happens to be where most marine organisms live and die. Sands are being moved in and out constantly and they can bury the dead quickly.Turbidites are underwater landslides that can bury the dead and the living. Large storms can produce massive amounts of subaerial erosion which can wash into the sea also burying the dead and the living rapidly. Also consider, local floods, landslides, mudslides, sand dunes, and so on.You can also increase the chances of fossils forming if the organism drowns or dies in swamps/bogs, anoxic or low oxygen lake/sea environments, in fine muds, in tree resin, in tar pits, alklaine water, etc. You don't need a flood, especially one of global proportions, to form fossils.The most common fossils are trace fossils (tracks, burrows, etc.), pollen, and shells.See the following for more info on fossils: Fossils and FossilisationProcesses and limitations of fossil formation

quote:

---

Noah and the flood is the only rational explanation which would explain how billions of dead things, burried in rock layers are present at the Grand Canyon and not a Pulitzar prize winning argument(awarded to him by humanist believers, not the act of a scientific explanation) concerning an ice glazier melting before the supposed ice age.

---

As I have already pointed out, Noah's Flood is not at all necessary to form fossils. However, if we found all the fossils together within the same stratum (the flood layer), dinosaurs, fish, humans, birds, algae, etc., THEN you might have an argument.Ice glazier? You mean glacier? Are you referring to the Black Sea, perhaps? That is just one of many possible explanations for the development of the flood myth(s).

quote:

---

Airs Rock in Australia is where the evolutionist turned after the Cambridge Explosion in hopes of digging deeper, in fact the deepest which has ever been dug till that time, all in hopes of finding evidence on the evolutionist sign. But did they find it? No. They found fossils of highly evolved organisms with dual semi-hemisphere brains and 5 hearts and digestive sysems, or to the unaware, earthworms. They also found sea creatures. A bit odd don't you think, seeing how the Airs Rock is in the middle of the Desert?

---

I have no idea what you are trying to say about Ayers Rock or dual semi-hemisphere brians (Google doesn't know what they are either). Marine fossils in the middle of Australia are not a problem for non-YECs. The sandstone that makes up Ayers Rock was deposited in a shallow-marine depositional setting (i.e., the ocean) ~600 million years ago, when Australia was part of the super-continent Rodinia (see it HERE).

quote:

---

Once again, the flood. Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980 guess what happened? A stumbling block for evolutionist theory of individual layers of rock forming in appoximately 1,000 years, that's what happened. Mt. Saint Helen formed in one particular spot, over 25 foot of new rock which consisted of literally thousands of layers, some of which were only millimeters thick. IT TOOK ONLY 3 HOURS TO FORM.

---

That is complete bunk. Mount St. Helens deposits consisted of UNCONSOLIDATED sediments. That's already been somewhat discussed HERE and on talk.Origins HERE.

quote:

---

A break of tectonics at the Grand Canyon area would explain the erosion of the rocks which formed the canyon along with mysterious layers of the Evolutionsist Geographic Scale being absent (skip from 1 to 5, where did 2,3 and 4 go?).

---

Break of tectonics? I don't know what that is.The rocks in the Grand Canyon were eroded after lithification, which is a world of difference compared to the erosion at Mount St. Helens of unlithified sediments. It takes a lot longer to erode rock than dirt.Evolutionist Geographic Scale? Do you know what this is? I don't. I'm wondering if you mean the Geologic Time Scale.Also, what layers are you talking about?[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-28-2003]

RoxRCoolThat is an excellent post! However, I think you should consider not wasting you time on this one. It's up to you, of course, but I don't think he will ever actually read anything with any comprehension.------------------
Common sense isn't

A convenient one, where you can juggle with millions of years at will.An evo' told me there is no evolution from ape to man. I then said "then what did we evolve from?"
He said, " A common ancestor "
I said "Can you show me the evidence of this common ancestor?"
He said " There is no evidence only ape transitionals "
I said, " so we are apes then "
He said "yes"
I said "Why the bloody hell didn't you just say we evolved from apes then, and stop fudging over things with jargon evo talk "
He said " I just thought the common ancestor would baffle you scientifically so I could win the debate "
I said "Mumamia"