Biblical Creationism is Incorrect

---Rebuttals--- 2P1A--- A. You immediately necessitate that something be falsifiable to be scientific. This notion is wrong. Take, for instance, the law of gravity. The law of gravity is unfalsifiable, because it has been backed-up with insurmountable evidence and thus seen as a scientific law, and scientific. Likewise, something, like Biblical Creationism, need not be falsifiable to be scientific. B. God does not use 'magic'. He is omnipotent, meaning all-powerful. C. No part of Biblical Creationism is "scientifically impossible, incredibly improbable, or contradictory". You only see it this way because you are allowing your atheistic worldview to stand in the way of the Truth. F. There is such a thing as absolute truth; something that is unfalsifiable, something the is the basis for all laws, whether moral or scientific. It is "fixed, invariable, unalterable fact" [1]. If you reject the Bible, you must adopt a basis for your thinking; an absolute truth, what you might consider your worldview. However, you are then contradicting science because by saying your worldview is absolute truth, you are viewing your worldview as unfalsifiable and therefore not having a scientific basis (according to your above logic). See the problem in this dilemma? E. I would also like to note that you may have jumped to these conclusions because the Bible has never been falsified---and therefore these views are your only copout options. Moreover, there is conclusive evidence, from archeology to the points I have made in my first argument, that the Bible is an extraordinary religious text. 2P1B--- A. I would first like to say that the Bible does not strictly espouse a certain age of the earth, it only proposes one, of which you have noted. B. You have much faith in dating methods; allow me to coagulate some facts for you: -You are assuming that initial amounts of the elements remained are "accurately known". -You are assuming that the "amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay". -You are assuming that the decay rate has remained constant throughout the millions of years. -Consider this: You walk into a room with an hourglass with sand falling from the top and sand on the bottom. By estimating the rate by which the sand has been falling and examining the amount of sand on the bottom, you could conclude the time ago the glass with turned over, right? However, like with dating elements, you assume the initial conditions and that the rate of fall has not altered. -Now that you see dating is based on critical assumptions, ponder these: 1. After Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1986, the newly formed rocks were dated using potassium-argon dating. They dated back to .5 to 2.8 million years. 2. After Mount Ngauruhoe erupted in 1949, 1954, and 1975, eleven samples were taken from each of the three eruptions. They dated back to .27 to 3.5 million years old. -With both of these instances, assumption #1 was false. As you can see, 1 single false assumption can lead to catastrophically outrageous ages. Therefore, when fallible dating methods fail to give accurate dates on elements of which we are certain the age, how can we trust them to give us the correct conclusion of elements from millions and billions of years ago of which their formation has not been observed? 2P1C--- -Evidences for the global flood: 1. "Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to the ocean waters having flooded over the continents above: Most of the rock layers in the walls of Grand Canyon (more than a mile above sea level) contain marine fossils. Fossilized shellfish are even found in the Himalayas. " 2. Rapid burial of creatures: "billions of nautiloid fossils are found in a layer within the Redwall Limestone of Grand Canyon. This layer was deposited catastrophically by a massive flow of sediment (mostly lime sand). The chalk and coal beds of Europe and the United States, and the fish, ichthyosaurs, insects, and other fossils all around the world, testify of catastrophic destruction and burial. " 3. "Sediment transported long distances: We find that the sediments in those widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers had to be eroded from distant sources and carried long distances by fast-moving water. For example, the sand for the Coconino Sandstone of Grand Canyon (Arizona) had to be eroded and transported from the northern portion of what is now the United States and Canada. Furthermore, water current indicators (such as ripple marks) preserved in rock layers show that for "300 million years" water currents were consistently flowing from northeast to southwest across all of North and South America, which, of course, is only possible over weeks during a global Flood. " 4. The very fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh, Sumerian Eridu, and the Atra-Hasis affirm it. All three claim an ark was built, the Atra-Hasis says it was an immense boat, all three say that there were animals and food stored on it, the Atra-Hasis says, that the family waited 7 days before the flood, the Atra Hasis and the Epic say the flood covered mountains, the Epic says the it rested on a mountain of Armenia, and the Epic speaks of the rainbow covenant God made with man. Every single one of these affirmations is distinctly discussed in the Bible. -There is enough water currently on earth to cover the entire earth by a depth of 1.7 miles. Where did it come from? "the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were open. .. " (Genesis 7) So, the water came from above the earth and from below the earth. Where did it go? "and the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters decreased. " -"Aside from the fact that the Ark is not large enough, the Ark could never have survived multiple-mile-high waves formed by the winds sweeping water around without any ground to break them up. No land animals could possibly have survived. " A. The ark was giant, for the record. It was "three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high", that is "450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. " [hub] B. A 1992 Korean study conclusively confirmed that the proportions of the ark would not only survive torrential waves and winds but also be comfortable living environment for the animals. Part of the reason modern ships are not catastrophically damaged by oceanic forces is because they possess similar proportions to that of Noah's Ark. 2P2A--- 1. This type of fear that we are to express toward God is not the commonly used definition of fear. It is not to say that we are to be afraid of Him or fear Him as a child would the 'monster under his/her bed'. Fear can also be defined as a 'awe', which is the type of fear we are to have for God. 1st John 4:18 is using the common perception of fear, in fact, the next verse discusses that there is torment in fear (affirming that it means the 'being afraid' definition of fear). The verses that say we are to fear God simply mean we are to have a reverential awe for Him. 2. "The prophecy that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2:1-13. If you read Acts chapter one, Jesus spoke after his resurrection about the kingdom. He also told them to wait in Jerusalem for him to send the Holy Spirit on them. Acts 2 is when Peter was given the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16). This pouring out of power on the Day of Pentecost was "the Day of the Lord" prophesied by Jesus and also by Joel. It was a day of the coming of the kingdom. " 3. This is not a contradiction. A contradiction is 'X and not X'. Vengeance and/or jealously do not deny love. In fact, each of these instances where God is portrayed as vengeful are all justified because man's sin provoked it. He is just . http://www.absolute--truth.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . https://answersingenesis.org... . http://www.noahs-ark.tv... . http://biblehub.com... . http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org...