Personally I like how creationists in one breath contend that the 'great flood' deposited the entire geological column; and in the next claim it carved the entire grand canyon. ...So which is it? Does a world-wide flood deposit minerals or erode it?!
Best example of an actual wacky creationist argument gets at least 10 points. :-)
2007-10-10 22:23:20 · 23 answers · asked by Dashes 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The combination of "micro-evolution occurs,not macro(whatever that means)when explaining how all life "micro-evolved"from the "kinds"on the ark,just a few thousand years ago.Then asking,"if evolution is true,why don't we see half and half species,not realizing that in order for so many different species to "micro-evolve"from a few "kinds" on the Ark in just a few thousand years,we SHOULD be seeing half/half creatures.While TOE is much slower,and a half/half creature would pretty much disprove TOE,and give credence to the flood story,or at least show that evolution works faster than any scientist ever proposed.Their "micro-evolution"from "kinds"actually requires a much faster rate of evolution than TOE,which they so bitterly oppose
2007-10-10 22:45:37 · answer #1 · answered by nobodinoze 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The flood first deposited the various layers through hydrological sorting---everything was underwater for over a year and when the flood waters subsided, they carved out the Grand Canyon from the still soft material in a very short time, not millions of years. The Grand Canyon has some very distinct features to it that require this explanation...it's stream bed twists and turns like a slow moving river but the steep angle of the sides indicate a very fast moving river or at least rapid erosion...how can you have both? The answer is rapid erosion of soft sediments, not rock which fits in with the evidence for a catastrophic flood. Many other articles have more details on why it had to be formed by a great flood.
http://creationwiki.org/Grand_Canyon
2007-10-10 23:20:50 · answer #2 · answered by paul h 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Mutation is this here random process so that means Evolootion is Random. But if Evolootion is random how can it cause something as complex as Man to occur? Obviously Sky-Daddy must have made man, not Satanic Evolootion. You can read about it in My King James Bible.
2016-05-21 04:03:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that a spontaneous, natural process can only lead to an increase in the entropy of a system. Entropy is roughly a measure of disorder or complexity. So the second law implies that natural processes can only cause things to become more disordered and less complex over time. But evolution asserts that natural processes have caused organisms to grow more complex over time. This is a contradiction, and since no one is inclined to abandon the second law, evolution must not be correct.
2007-10-10 22:34:11 · answer #4 · answered by Velouria 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Here is one arguement I have used many times... Read carefully...
God can make things to be "old". What do I mean by this? Basically, if the same process were to occur "naturally"
[ and without God's direct intervention ], then it may take millions of years, say. But God can do it in an instant what a 'natural progressive process' to yield the same result may take a 'very long time'.
An example, will better illustrate what I am trying to say. Imagine you are Adam. You just got created. You wanted to eat an apple. "Naturally" you have to wait say about 5 years for the apple tree to grow and yield its fruit for you to it. But you have to eat 'now'. God comes along and "poof!" gives you an apple in the hand which would otherwise would have taken you years 'of waiting for the apple tree to grow and bear fruit'.
Indeed. God's work is to do what is "impossible" with men. That is why the word "impossible" does NOT exist in God's dictionary. Men often "think" that if it is "impossible" for them to comprehend within the "sphere of their observation & knowledge", then they "assume" that God isnt able too as well which is not true.
Why did God create things "old"? So that we can use them
[ be it petroleum or diamond etc ] without having to wait millions or billions of years for it to be otherwise formed naturally. In which case, civilization would have "lagged" due to lack of "natural resouces and minerals" which would NOT be in existence until a few million or billion years from now.
Therefore, be Grateful.
Yup. Thats my personal Arguement.
Kind Regards,
:)
2007-10-10 23:02:03 · answer #5 · answered by jonny boy 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
anything about the flood is just priceless. vapour canopy, runaway subduction... i particularly like how they try to explain oil deposits totalling over ten times the mass of carbon in the present day biosphere.
2007-10-10 22:34:40 · answer #6 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The banana argument. The ridiculous part is that the modern banana was intelligently designed-by US! We bred the thing from the wild banana which has few of the modern characteristics.
2007-10-10 22:28:57 · answer #7 · answered by Bob C 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They're all pretty wacky. In order to have "faith" you need to suspend reason and logical thinking. Which is never a good idea.
Our ability to think for ourselves is our greatest tool. Don't ever let someone tell you that you shouldn't think for yourself or think "too much".
2007-10-10 22:27:46 · answer #8 · answered by Epik 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Adam and Eve didn't think that a talking snake was strange and that the snake's punishment for deceiving them was to slither on it's belly from then on.Oh how it must have rued it's actions.
2007-10-10 22:32:45 · answer #9 · answered by Cotton Wool Ninja 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There are so many good ones it's difficult to choose...
I will have to go with the "You will have to ask god when you die." arguement... I was given this arguement quite often as a child when I asked questions my sunday school teachers couldn't answer... Talk about inspiring...
2007-10-10 22:34:57 · answer #10 · answered by Diane (PFLAG) 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋