first, nice pic of the paw-over-face; but i didn't hear any scientific refutation to the points made in any of the many articles. do you have anything of substance to offer, or just your claims?

second, is it really absurd that a mature plant cannot survive for 24 hours without the sun?

third, which scientific law dictates that the sun must pre-date the earth?

fourth, the creation, if true, was a supernatural event. considering that, you are not going to be very successful in refuting it by pointing out inconsistencies according to natural law.

I'm not going to bother refuting every single idiotic creationist claim that has already been refuted thousands of times by various scientists. I don't have that much time to waste. There is no new material in creationism, it's still the same crap that has been around 30 years ago that's continually recycled. Now, if there's something specific you'd like me to refute feel free to bring it to my attention. Or you can just go to http://talkorigins.org/ as they've pretty much covered every creationist argument out there.

This link has a complete index of creationist arguments and their refutations:

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

If you're arguing for a literal 6-day creation of the world I'm not going to dignify that with a response.

The Earth cannot be rotating around NOTHING. If the Earth was created before the Sun, current planetory motion would be impossible.

If you're just gonna say "God can do anything" then there's nothing to argue but then don't claim your beliefs are reasonable or can be justified using facts.

I can make up my own creation story and whenever something is scientifically impossible I'll just say "The FSM did it." This would not be a very useful argument.

Here is a link to an article that has been posted before. But it seems that many people did not bother to read it as they are still pretending that there is an issue with the order of creation.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/mortenson.html

You're using a very loose interpretation of pretty easy lol.

How convenient!

Yet 500 years ago almost no one thought the creation story was to be taken any way but literally. Weird.

I read it.

He's providing one interpretation, and in the process wants us to think he's proved another interpretation wrong. He did nothing of the sort.

He made a very strong case and there are many more articles out there just like this one.

If you like, I would listen to your argument on why it must be the other interpretation.

So did the guy who he was trying to correct.

I can't lay it out any better than that guy did. No matter what I say about the other interpretation you will still believe what you currently believe because if you didn't you'd have to stop believing in God.

Probably so.



Not sure what this is supposed to mean? I see nothing wrong with using scientific knowledge to help us better interpret Scripture.



See above. Quit trying to pigeonhole us into the Young Earth Creationist niche. Many of us think science is another facet of revelation. If God didnt want us to use all of our facilities to come closer to Truth than he wouldnt have given us them.

He ignores the plants before the sun problem.

Please tell me how you reconcile plants existing before the sun was created.

Without the hebrew version and an independant accurate hebrew translation this is difficult to dissect. It just seems a stupid way to write what happened on days 1-3 and then say, "On the fourth day God had already made Sun and Moon"
Could these translations be biased?

Also,why are we still peddling these bibles with incorrect translations. Hasn't someone thought to correct us all whilst we read the wrong stuff?

lulz bejesus

If the arguements for evolution are so strong, someone should claim the reward this creation scientist is offering on http://www.drdino.com/speaker.php?s=3.

Dr. Hovind's goal is to strengthen the faith of believers, to confound and to convict the evolutionists, and to win the lost to Christ. He offers $250,000 to anyone with real scientific evidence for evolution. His video on the age of the earth convinced me that proof might exist for creation science. If the evidence is so convincing otherwise he is more than will to pay up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

have you even read the specifics of this deal?

also just for kicks, the dude is a convicted tax evader
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15261

what does the age of the earth have to do with my salvation?

I stand corrected with this creation scientist. I had no idea he had such little credibility or evaded taxes. I wonder if Lee Stobel's Case for a Creator has any credibility. He claimed to have been a former evolutionist. I will have to put more thought into this.

You can say that, but you would be totally wrong.

So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk. [Thomas Edison]

All Bibles are man-made. [Thomas Edison]

I never believe in God. I believe that religions are some sort of morality teachings, and people who are obsess with it are usually people that can control their own fate.

History has proved that some of the most successful and most intelligent people NEVER BELIEVE IN GOD.

I gotta read this forum more often this thread is all kinds of awesome, lolz.

That's interesting because I've read the bible and have never once seen where it says the world is 6,000 years old.