-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Texas Canyons Highlight Geologic Evidence for Catastrophe
- Thread starter mandym
- Start date
It's strange that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) didn't source the original article. But of course that would have destroyed their straw man.
Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event [LINK]
As is typical for such "creationist" sites they misrepresent their opposition and argue against the straw-man they invented.
They feed gullible Christians a mixture of truth and falsehood in order to promote their simplistically literal interpretation of scripture.
Having just visited the Grand Canyon in October, I heard from the rangers and saw with my own eyes plenty of evidence for both catastrophic geologic events and for slow and gradual erosion.
We all can observe that nature uses both methods to sculpt the world around us.
Rob
Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event [LINK]
As is typical for such "creationist" sites they misrepresent their opposition and argue against the straw-man they invented.
They feed gullible Christians a mixture of truth and falsehood in order to promote their simplistically literal interpretation of scripture.
Having just visited the Grand Canyon in October, I heard from the rangers and saw with my own eyes plenty of evidence for both catastrophic geologic events and for slow and gradual erosion.
We all can observe that nature uses both methods to sculpt the world around us.
Rob
Please enlighten us as to what you consider the "straw-man" the creationists hold.
You have to pay to see the full article at that link. A very good reason not to. However they did give full credit as can be seen:
Why is it on this site in order to make a point Christians must tear one another down in this manner? Are you that threatened by the article? This is a very unnecessary and rude post.
You entire response ignores the fact that for many years ti has been argued that the Canyon is a result of slow processes in order to prop up evolution. the informal fallacy is yours.
Just curious if you are familiar with this site:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
Let me know what you think.
While I know that some hold to the earth being millions of years old, and I don't consider this to be something that indicates a disbelief in scripture, I will say that it is hard to reconcile (for me, anyway) the Genesis account with an incredibly long earth history as suggested by some.
J. Vernon McGee, a man I have the highest respect for, believed the earth to very old, and was a believer of the Gap Restoration Theory (which he did not believe to be a theory, if I may so say...lol).
But take a look at the site provided, and let me know what you think.
God bless.
STRAW MAN "Scientists are now making the same kinds of conclusions about rapid, catastrophic processes having sculpted the earth that creation geologists have been teaching for decades."
The implication is that creation scientists were the first to propose catastrophic events and modern scientist followed their lead.
The truth is that catastrophism has been part of geologic science well before creation science was developed.
I've become disallusioned with "Creation Science" after researching the shoddy science and its strange biblical interpretations.
Darrell, I once attended a creationist lecture by Walt Brown quite a few years back while I in college. I was disturbed by his ability to hoodwink his audience. Among some of the things I heard was that Noah had baby dinosaurs on the Ark and the idea was "proved" biblically.
Rob
The implication is that creation scientists were the first to propose catastrophic events and modern scientist followed their lead.
The truth is that catastrophism has been part of geologic science well before creation science was developed.
I've become disallusioned with "Creation Science" after researching the shoddy science and its strange biblical interpretations.
Darrell, I once attended a creationist lecture by Walt Brown quite a few years back while I in college. I was disturbed by his ability to hoodwink his audience. Among some of the things I heard was that Noah had baby dinosaurs on the Ark and the idea was "proved" biblically.
Rob
quantumfaith
Active Member
Rob, here is the youtube link, and you know being on Youtube it has to be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy7-xvV95No
convicted1
Guest
An honest question for you, Brother Rob. Are you an old "earther". I think that you are, but not zactly sure. I am a young "earther". But I have nothing ill for the old "earthers'. To each their own, as they feel led, I say.
Rob, aren't we all seeking the truth? It matters little to me who was first to proclaim the truth. Which group of scientists thought what and when.
Since I was a young whippersnapper geology has been a subject of great interest. Seriously considered a college major in geology with a focus on marine geology. Thought I'd found a way to reconcile what the Bible teaches vs 50+ years of teachings to the contrary. However, I was seriously challenged, a while back, about what I thought I beleived.
With many prayers asking the Holy Spirit to lead, I began a search for the truth. Frankly, I'd had never given much thought to the possibility the Grand Canyon could have been created in months vs millions of years. I "knew" how it was formed and the Creator's role in it.
Like tugboats trying to turn the Queen Mary around, it's been a battle to change my course. I was firmly anchored to MY reconcilation of the scriptures with what I KNEW happened. "Creation scientists" and the Holy Spirit pulled up the anchor chains. First, helping me to consider that I was wrong. Later to show me just how wrong I was.
I'd like to offer a challenge to you.
Can you prove this is incorrect?
Could it not be said that theologians have for millennia not just proposed but ardently expressed belief in catastrophic events, well before modern science?
If you mean "modern creation science," I would probably agree with that. But again, we have very limited information in scripture concerning science before the flood. I myself am inclined to believe it possible that man may have been well advanced before the flood.
Understand that I am not opposed to science, though I have talked with those that utilize science as a basis for unbelief. Would you admit that this is true?
I also do not rely upon creation science as a basis of my own belief that the world was created in 6 days, nor to reconcile earth conditions and events with the testimony of scripture.
Could you expand upon how he "hoodwinked the audience?"
As far as...
...I would have to hear this "biblical proof" to judge what he is trying to say. At first glance it seems a little silly, though, I will admit.
As far as his site, have you taken a look at it? We all know that we grow in our understanding, and it may be that the intervening years may have tempered his position.
As far as science not explaining where the material that was displaced from the Grand Canyon went, I think this an interesting question. Do you have any thoughts about it?
When it comes to the science versus creation science debate, it should always, when the debate is between believers, be settled in scripture. While the findings, theories, and results are ever changing, as we all know, the word of God does not change. Is there in scripture any reason to disbelieve that God created the world in 6 days as it states?
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Can we assume that you are a geologist?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The following excerpt demonstrates the extreme bias of evolutionary scientists. Using transmitted images of Mars they conclude: "3.5 billion years ago, Mars experienced the largest known floods in the solar system." Isn't it amazing? They can even date that historic event!
Yet given the worldwide evidence of the Noah Flood they still cling to their uniformitarian theory for the simple reason that evolution demands it.
===============================
Water on Mars?
Scientists believe that 3.5 billion years ago, Mars experienced the largest known floods in the solar system. This water may even have pooled into lakes or shallow oceans. But where did the ancient floodwater come from, how long did it last, and where did it go?
At present, Mars is too cold and its atmosphere is too thin to allow liquid water to exist at the surface for long. There's water ice close to the surface and more water frozen in the polar ice caps, but the quantity of water required to carve Mars's great channels and flood plains is not evident on—or near—the surface today. Images from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft suggest that underground reserves of water may break through the surface as springs. The answers may lie deep beneath Mars's red soil.
Unraveling the story of water on Mars is important to unlocking its past climate history, which will help us understand the evolution of all planets, including our own. Water is also believed to be a central ingredient for the initiation of life; the evidence of past or present water on Mars is expected to hold clues about past or present life on Mars, as well as the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. And, before humans can safely go to Mars, we need to know much more about the planet's environment, including the availability of resources such as water.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/mars-article/
Yet given the worldwide evidence of the Noah Flood they still cling to their uniformitarian theory for the simple reason that evolution demands it.
===============================
Water on Mars?
Scientists believe that 3.5 billion years ago, Mars experienced the largest known floods in the solar system. This water may even have pooled into lakes or shallow oceans. But where did the ancient floodwater come from, how long did it last, and where did it go?
At present, Mars is too cold and its atmosphere is too thin to allow liquid water to exist at the surface for long. There's water ice close to the surface and more water frozen in the polar ice caps, but the quantity of water required to carve Mars's great channels and flood plains is not evident on—or near—the surface today. Images from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft suggest that underground reserves of water may break through the surface as springs. The answers may lie deep beneath Mars's red soil.
Unraveling the story of water on Mars is important to unlocking its past climate history, which will help us understand the evolution of all planets, including our own. Water is also believed to be a central ingredient for the initiation of life; the evidence of past or present water on Mars is expected to hold clues about past or present life on Mars, as well as the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. And, before humans can safely go to Mars, we need to know much more about the planet's environment, including the availability of resources such as water.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/mars-article/
The start of modern Creation Science is 1960 when The Genesis Flood was published. I am no scientist at all and I may be quite wrong, but I don't recall hearing about catastrophism in evolution until well after that date.Deacon said:
When I was growing up I was told that the earth was billions of years old because
'It takes millions of years for coal and oil to form.' Fact. Pit props in mines less than 100 years old are starting to coalify. So-called fossil fuels can now be manufactured commercially.
'It takes millions of years for stalagmites and stalactites to grow.' Fact. These are found on bridges less than 50 years old.
'It takes millions of years for coral reefs to form.' Fact. A decent-size coral reef can grow in 50 years or so.
'It takes millions of years for new species to evolve.' Fact. There is no evidence that any 'evolution' can occur that involves increases in DNA. Variation within a kind can occur within a few short years.
These things were presented to me as fact and I believed them. As a result I was, if not an outright atheist, certainly a deist for the first 36 years of my life. Having come to the knowledge of the Truth, I am not going to believe what secular scientists tell me again without very good reason. A natural reading of Genesis 1-2 tells us that God created the world in six days. I wonder why it took Him so long?
Steve
Steve, I was fed the same line for over 50 years. During that time I believed in God, so I thought He was directing that slow transformation. In essence that God's day length was different from a 24 hour cycle. There's a name for that belief, you know.
I didn't until a man of faith reacted so strongly to that belief, I knew I had to find the truth. It wasn't so much his words, as the realization that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. And the Holy Spirit within me, said listen. No, I didn't hear those words. Can't explain it. Just a sudden awareness that I needed to question what I thought I believed about the first book of the Bible.
In doing so, discovered there are many more examples that can be added to the list you gave. Plus a list of what couldn't have happened if millions of years were involved, as some claim. Circumstances that were not included in that 50 years of being taught by schools and such. If it don't fit the theory, don't include it.
As a side note, one thing that's happened is I can't watch the History channel in the same way I did before I was challenged to learn the truth. The term "millions of years" now sounds like fingernails on a chalk board. Before, those words were like a big bowl of strawberry ice cream.
I didn't until a man of faith reacted so strongly to that belief, I knew I had to find the truth. It wasn't so much his words, as the realization that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. And the Holy Spirit within me, said listen. No, I didn't hear those words. Can't explain it. Just a sudden awareness that I needed to question what I thought I believed about the first book of the Bible.
In doing so, discovered there are many more examples that can be added to the list you gave. Plus a list of what couldn't have happened if millions of years were involved, as some claim. Circumstances that were not included in that 50 years of being taught by schools and such. If it don't fit the theory, don't include it.
As a side note, one thing that's happened is I can't watch the History channel in the same way I did before I was challenged to learn the truth. The term "millions of years" now sounds like fingernails on a chalk board. Before, those words were like a big bowl of strawberry ice cream.
Pink held to it:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pi...genesis_01.htm
It's odd, many of those who object to the notion of a gap between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 have no qualms whatsoever to inserting a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I don't put a gap in either place!
Heheh, that doesn't surprise me!
When I came to the BB, I tended to agree with Pink, now I'm uncommitted and content to be that way. Pink does draw an interesting type on regeneration from the theory though.
No gap in Daniel for me either.
Last edited by a moderator: