Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DavisBJ,

Hi!! I've been meaning to write you for a couple days now, but I've been so swamped. Thursday, on the 8th, I went to the Pulmonary Specialist {Lung Doctor} and he gave me three breathing medications which are really helping tons. He also wants me to have a CAT Scan very soon. They are supposed to call me about when. This is to see if my prostate-area cancer cells have spread to my right lung. He doesn't think so, but wants to check. My other doctor {PCP} says he thinks he sees a nodule in the upper right lung. Anyway, will find out. Otherwise, I'm going to have to get radiation on my prostate-area for 5 times a week for 8 weeks. I can't afford the copay but my friends say not to worry about that. That they will get tons of money from my insurance company.

So how have you been doing? What have you been up to? You hardly ever post anymore. Stuu and noguru have been banned, but not permanently. Just for a while. That's all I know, but it is good news. Mark SeaSigh got permanently banned before, so this is hopeful.

Check out my article right above this post. What do you think?? It's pretty basic. Hopefully you can find some truth in it. We're supposed to get over 100 degrees this week coming. It will be an all-time record. I guess it's what you'd call Indian Summer here. It's been in the 80s and 90s. Well, let me know what you think about my article. Will chat with you soon!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

what does all those sources say IP ?

Yes, Interplanner. Do we get these by clicking on them? Perhaps copying and pasting in the browser bar might do it. Will see what happens maybe. It's quite a list!

Jesus Be With You!!

Michael

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, Interplanner. Do we get these by clicking on them? Perhaps copying and pasting in the browser bar might do it. Will see what happens maybe. It's quite a list!

Jesus Be With You!!

Michael

As the title should say, it is some of the newest research materials about the Biblical deluge, but of course, there are some geological or physical things about the deluge that are hard to remove too far from the things created on the 6 days: emergence of land, the great deep (the fountains of the great deep), the firmament that is above (distinct from using that term for land masses). Many of the titles come from the speakers at the late September nwcreation.net conference in Seattle.

As think go back in time in the Biblical account, we would come to evidence for a global deluge first, rather than creation. So in some ways, it is easier to find that, especially when we realize what a mucky, twisted, crash scene the deluge made out of the original.

For ex., it is easier to demonstrate that most of central Australia is rapid, forceful sedimentary deposit--forceful enough to bend Ayers Rock. Because those are the layers or items on the "top" of what you find there, and there is nothing catastrophic-sounding about the day of creation when the land appeared and separated the ocean into smaller units (the deep in v2 was already there). Ayers Rock is J shaped in which only the tip of the tail is bent up and surfaces. It is evidence of geologic bending or folding, of massive water/slurry forces at work.

 

[Interplanner]

Dear Interplanner,

I live in Arizona and the Grand Canyon is northwest of here {I'm in Phoenix}. As far as I know, some geologists found evidence in the sediment layers to suggest that there had been a Great Flood. And now you say there is a canyon 3 times bigger than the Grand Canyon, but it's under water. What good is that. It's probably down there with Atlantis. Also probably a meteor made it. I think we used to be one continent at one time. The borders seem to fit like a puzzle. If you need me to explain it better, let me know. Come and visit the Grand Canyon. So far, I have not been there. It's a long drive. Further than Flagstaff. Well, I'll get going. Thanks for posting your knowledge of things!!

God Bless Your Heart & Soul Tons,

Michael

What good is a canyon underwater? Ahh, that's just it. Water runs downhill. A canyon 3x the size of Grand Canyon is off the coast of California, formed extremely rapidly and drained as the earth was radically changed during the deluge and the Pacific trench was...downhill. We have to "account" for where global water that covered everything ended up--or down! It's just a matter of synchronizing the moving parts. And that water runs downhill.

I've recently realized that for the sake of understanding Genesis, every reader should become a bit of a geologist, or perhaps, hydrologist. It's as valuable as knowing a bit of Hebrew.

Any uniformitarian with some mathematical sense knows that the vast volume of water in the Pacific has to be accounted for. But they try to do it without really coming to terms with the violently-changed structures we find all over. Such geologic structures do not happen a half inch a year over millions. They happen quickly and are messy and overrun and crash and bend and fold. The smashed and plastered dinosaur fossils may have happened from other smaller catastrophes (asteroids, Lake Missoula) but there are simply too many major land forms that have changed abruptly due to something global.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, filmmaker, after the science was done and settled.

Except these creationists make the film, before they do the science.

Bretz was never re-accepted by USGS.

Look, I live out here where Bretz is very famous. He was awarded the Penrose Medal; the Geological Society of America's highest award, in 1979.

The quotes and references I heard were to peers in their work, whether it was the London geology society, or the Australian "Centralia" theory, or Sterberg on mutations. You have way too much "faith" in scientists so far.

It's hilarious that you don't see the contradiction there. :chuckle:

 

[Interplanner]

Except these creationists make the film, before they do the science.



Look, I live out here where Bretz is very famous. He was awarded the Penrose Medal; the Geological Society of America's highest award, in 1979.



It's hilarious that you don't see the contradiction there. :chuckle:

I do see the contradiction: uniformitarianism is contradicted.

The first time I heard of Bretz was this month; it was a picture of a roadside plaque dedicated to him because his work was censored by the USGS in the early 30s, yet he had a grasp on Lake Missoula way before his time. The reason for the censorship was the official mainstream US intellectual and educational world on the Christian base. They went to work like a dictatorship purging anything from textbooks that would support Genesis 1-11. It's great to hear he's being accepted. The attack on the Christian base was explicitly why Lyell went to work. It is why a certain law professor Langdell was hired at Harvard law in 1869. That is extremely shoddy science.

There will, of course, always be a reason why people don't accept what the Bible is saying even with enough proof; I have no control over that. I'm just here to convey that there is ordinary, scientific proof of what it says, and hope that the person listening is able to let 'chips' fall where they will.

Lyell said geology has to be based on processes that we can see happen. Good idea unless you live in a landscape chocked full of exceptions, crashes, bends, folds, gaps, anachronistic deposits, meteorites, 2000 mile transfers of sediment, etc. He wrote too much before he knew enough to do so.

 

[MichaelCadry]

As the title should say, it is some of the newest research materials about the Biblical deluge, but of course, there are some geological or physical things about the deluge that are hard to remove too far from the things created on the 6 days: emergence of land, the great deep (the fountains of the great deep), the firmament that is above (distinct from using that term for land masses). Many of the titles come from the speakers at the late September nwcreation.net conference in Seattle.

As think go back in time in the Biblical account, we would come to evidence for a global deluge first, rather than creation. So in some ways, it is easier to find that, especially when we realize what a mucky, twisted, crash scene the deluge made out of the original.

For ex., it is easier to demonstrate that most of central Australia is rapid, forceful sedimentary deposit--forceful enough to bend Ayers Rock. Because those are the layers or items on the "top" of what you find there, and there is nothing catastrophic-sounding about the day of creation when the land appeared and separated the ocean into smaller units (the deep in v2 was already there). Ayers Rock is J shaped in which only the tip of the tail is bent up and surfaces. It is evidence of geologic bending or folding, of massive water/slurry forces at work.

Dear Interplanner,

Ayers Rock could have been placed there at the beginning of Creation or else a result of the Flood. Maybe it's there to prove there was a flood. We will find out when we go to Heaven. There are a number of reasons that it could be there that way. An earthquake? An avalanche? A later local flood? God is capable of many things indeed. It's hard to say. God bless you for trying to find answers.

Praise God!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer:
​

You begin typing here. Erase this first.

 

[Interplanner]

The reason it is there is to contra-indicate uniformitarianism.

 

[MichaelCadry]

What good is a canyon underwater? Ahh, that's just it. Water runs downhill. A canyon 3x the size of Grand Canyon is off the coast of California, formed extremely rapidly and drained as the earth was radically changed during the deluge and the Pacific trench was...downhill. We have to "account" for where global water that covered everything ended up--or down! It's just a matter of synchronizing the moving parts. And that water runs downhill.

I've recently realized that for the sake of understanding Genesis, every reader should become a bit of a geologist, or perhaps, hydrologist. It's as valuable as knowing a bit of Hebrew.

Any uniformitarian with some mathematical sense knows that the vast volume of water in the Pacific has to be accounted for. But they try to do it without really coming to terms with the violently-changed structures we find all over. Such geologic structures do not happen a half inch a year over millions. They happen quickly and are messy and overrun and crash and bend and fold. The smashed and plastered dinosaur fossils may have happened from other smaller catastrophes (asteroids, Lake Missoula) but there are simply too many major land forms that have changed abruptly due to something global.

Dear Interplanner,

Now I understand what the last two posts MEAN!! You're talking about where all of the water went after the Flood! Well, the crater would have filled up with water too, during the great Deluge. But not if it were made afterwards. Perhaps a meteor hit it while it was still shallow or before we even were more than one continent. Well, that sounds interesting. Any idea how the Grand Canyon came about?? Possibly a huge meteor? I know that geologists have studied the canyon and found evidence in the layers of a Great Flood when it was surmised. You're right, it could have been a geological mishap, like an earthquake of Great magnitude. Very interesting! Hey, did you get to read my Creation article above? What do you think? It's at the top of this page, I believe. Okay, will get going. Chat with you soon, I hope.

God Be With You Always!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

The reason it is there is to contra-indicate uniformitarianism.

Dear Interplanner,

I'm not very familiar with your wording. Is this about Ayers Rock or the Grand Canyon. In other words, you are saying Ayers Rock didn't form as a possible climatic outcome. That is wasn't formed with rushing water, etc?? I don't hear uniformitarianism every day, so it's a bit difficult. Also, I am sorry if my answer in my previous post to you was wrong also. I'm doing my best for you. Usually I am not stumped, but this time I am.

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[TheDuke]

The idea that God created the world and life is often thought to have been disproved by evolutionary theory.

No, the biblical myths of adam&eve, the flood and the implicit theological timeline have been disproved by evolution. The creation of the world is disproved by other fields of science and philosophy.

This is usually referred to in scientific terms as “The Big Bang Theory.” Of course, this implies that someone or something brought the universe into existence.

Ouch, so wrong. The BBT doesn't match the genesis account in the slightest, neither in principal, details, timeline or anything. Your disingenuous generalization serves you no good either, because although it's clear that you mean your god of the bible, the statement just opens the door to any deity of choice. But most importantly, the implication mentioned is arbitrary and groundless.

For example, the elementary forces of gravity, electromagnetism, and the atom are precisely what they need to be. The earth’s size, distance from the sun, rotational period, composition, and many other factors are all just right.

of course they are, otherwise we wouldn't be here, called the anthropic principle.

the evidence is mounting that life on earth simply could not and did not come into existence through natural processes in a primordial “soup.”

Where is that evidence, I'd like to know.
Good luck proving a negative without offering even an alternative explanation.

Fourthly, the genetic code of all biological life on earth contains evidence of intelligent design. This is because the genetic code contains information comparable to the information in complex computer programs as well as information in books.

So wrong, firstly do be honest and admit that ID is nothing more than another word for "my god did it", secondly the DNA is only comparable to letters in a book because WE MADE this analogy on purpose, since it simplifies the understanding by invoking terminology and concepts that everyone is familiar with. In reality the "information" isn't there, becuase DNA is manipulated by cellular mechanisms on a molecular level, where the geometry and composition of one molecule interacts with another, just like pure chemisty. This is precisely the reason why most of the DNA isn't really "coding" for proteins, why the process is so complex and convoluted instead of just "reading a book".

the fossil record continues to be an embarrassment to the Darwinian theory of evolution. The many transitional forms which Darwin predicted would be found simply have not surfaced.

I don't know exactly what Darwin himself predicted, so maybe your statement has a grain of truth, however paleontologists around the world would strongly disagree with this embarrassment to apologetics regarding lack of transitional forms.
C'mon, just google it mate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


Cheers, Duke

 

[TheDuke]

now we know...

now we know...

Found this:




Removed--Blasphemous.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do see the contradiction: uniformitarianism is contradicted.

Your obliviousness is noted.

The first time I heard of Bretz was this month

That much is obvious.

it was a picture of a roadside plaque dedicated to him because his work was censored by the USGS in the early 30s, yet he had a grasp on Lake Missoula way before his time. The reason for the censorship was the official mainstream US intellectual and educational world on the Christian base. They went to work like a dictatorship purging anything from textbooks that would support Genesis 1-11. It's great to hear he's being accepted.

Yet Bretz kept working, collecting data, and submitting his work to the scientific community until he managed to convince them, unlike creationists who don't do the work, cry persecution, and go make a movie.

I'm just here to convey that there is ordinary, scientific proof of what it says, and hope that the person listening is able to let 'chips' fall where they will.

So you believe you actually have scientific proof for creationism, but you can't be bothered to write it up and send it to a scientific journal? Why not?

Lyell said geology has to be based on processes that we can see happen. Good idea unless you live in a landscape chocked full of exceptions, crashes, bends, folds, gaps, anachronistic deposits, meteorites, 2000 mile transfers of sediment, etc. He wrote too much before he knew enough to do so.[/QUOTE]

Your ignorance of uniformitarianism is as bad as your ignorance of Bretz's work. Here, educate yourself: CLICK HERE.

 

[Interplanner]

Your obliviousness is noted.



That much is obvious.



Yet Bretz kept working, collecting data, and submitting his work to the scientific community until he managed to convince them, unlike creationists who don't do the work, cry persecution, and go make a movie.



So you believe you actually have scientific proof for creationism, but you can't be bothered to write it up and send it to a scientific journal? Why not?

Lyell said geology has to be based on processes that we can see happen. Good idea unless you live in a landscape chocked full of exceptions, crashes, bends, folds, gaps, anachronistic deposits, meteorites, 2000 mile transfers of sediment, etc. He wrote too much before he knew enough to do so.

Your ignorance of uniformitarianism is as bad as your ignorance of Bretz's work. Here, educate yourself: CLICK HERE.[/QUOTE]




When a uniformitarian says that 1, the whole reason they are at work is to destroy Moses, and 2, that everything we see today was produced by processes that move about 1/2 inch per year, the guy has huge problems.

You can't deposit 6000 feet of depth of sediment, some of it from 2000 miles away, on top of bedrock and then put it a mile high without rapid, convulsive forces.

You can't carve a canyon 3x the size of Grand Canyon without an ocean of water carrying sediment that was on the bottom bedrock that is now under sediment just mentioned.

All granite on Ayers rock is jagged. None of the conglomerate is rounded. It happened rapidly. Which is why the Genesis flood and related accounts reinforce the belief in CPT.

I think Lyell was a stooge for the Royals to recapture centralized elitist government. They were scared crapless of what the US Constitution meant with its direct contact between citizen and Creator.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, so much for trying to educate a creationist.

 

[Interplanner]

From the site you referenced:
But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.

Ie, he was not objective. He had an agenda. That is not proper for science.

If anything he reduced his observation powers to see what he wanted to see. It is Agers, Clemens, Silvestru, Vereshogin, etc who are doing the real observing these days.

 

[Interplanner]

Well, so much for trying to educate a creationist.

The site you referenced did nothing for my confidence that Lyell was pure as the snow on agenda. It is exactly the complaint of the scientists today who dissent from Lyell. The political meaning of evolution and uniformitarianism comes from educating myself about T. Huxley, and why he pushed or raped Darwin into publishing. So yes, I have become educated.

 

[Jose Fly]

From the site you referenced:
But Lyell became disenchanted with Buckland when Buckland tried to link catastrophism to the Bible, looking for evidence that the most recent catastrophe had actually been Noah's flood. Lyell wanted to find a way to make geology a true science of its own, built on observation and not susceptible to wild speculations or dependent on the supernatural.

Ie, he was not objective. He had an agenda. That is not proper for science.

Um.....appealing to supernatural causes isn't proper for science. If it is, perhaps you can explain how we can scientifically investigate and test God?

It is Agers, Clemens, Silvestru, Vereshogin, etc who are doing the real observing these days.

Who? Again, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in over a century.

 

[Interplanner]

Just one gap in Grand Canyon is a 260M year gap in the "schedule" of uniformitarianism. That's just one of several dozen. GC happened quickly, including the nautiloid slurry that runs 6 ft deep 150 miles to Las Vegas downstream.

 

[6days]

Um.....appealing to supernatural causes isn't proper for science. If it is, perhaps you can explain how we can scientifically investigate and test God?

Science is knowledge and the search for truth. Atheists, and most secularists exclude supernatural creation, and are unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads. They are committed to the religion of materialism.
As evolutionist professor Richard Lewontin said "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "