Our Websites

Even an agnostic questions Grand Canyon

Standing at the base of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain illogical. I spent a couple of weeks wandering through the Grand Canyon when I was in my early twenties. I was alone and was not given one of the government-sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school. I was puzzled by it then, but far more puzzled when I looked at it in person.

The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon. Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light-pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark-pink debris, and so forth? What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers? They are relatively smooth, even lines that stretch for great distances without any signs of erosion between them. It actually looked like the product of different types and weights of silt settling after a flood, although at the time, I erroneously considered the possibility of more than one flood having been involved.

Being an agnostic at the time, I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense. The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb.

If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon, this theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it. I was puzzled at the time as to why so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were wrong and left it at that.

Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.

How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth.

Further Study

Watch Eric’s Creation Minute to see the Grand Canyon from the biblical perspective.

,

Leave34 Responses to testEven an agnostic questions Grand Canyon

  1. andrew Ryan January 24, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    “What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers?”

    Have you tried asking anyone with any expertise on the subject, or have you just figured that you can’t work out a reason, and therefore concluded that no explanation can possibly exist?

    What explanation do YOU have for the uniformity of color, that is consistent with the canyon being only thousands of years old?

  2. Jack Napper January 24, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    Even an agnostic questions Grand Canyon

    What’s next? “Even a Scientologist questions questions the Grand Canyon”??? I mean you know they think Xenu blew up volcanoes with hydrogen bombs, right? So then all those dating methods can’t be accurate. Do Creationists really think this lends any credibility to the garbage claims?

    Standing at the base of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain illogical.

    Yet Creationists haven’t given a decent LOGICAL explanation.

    I was alone and was not given one of the government-sponsored propaganda tours, but I had been told the same pseudo-science concerning the Canyon and its origin throughout my government school indoctrination program, beginning in elementary school.

    Poisoning the well.

    The line that “it had been carved out by a river” made absolutely no sense to me, but what puzzled me more were the evenly colored stripes of even heights that were uniformly found throughout the entire canyon.

    We’ve seen the videos debunking this nonsense (commentary on Eric’s Creation minute nonsense). Oh, and you’re cherry picking.

    Not being a Christian at that time, I was not troubled by the idea of the earth being millions or billions of years old, but I was not able to understand how each of these individual layers, or stripes, got to be of one unified color.

    This is a great set up as if being a Christian somehow automatically means you’re ignorant. “I used to be just like you guys, seriously.”

    Did they expect us to believe that millions of years of light-pink debris were followed by millions of years of gray debris, followed by millions of years of dark-pink debris, and so forth?

    Strawman much?

    What possible factors could have explained this uniformity of color, not to mention the uniformity of the lines dividing the layers?

    If anything is illogical it would have to be this blog entry.

    Being an agnostic at the time…

    And Kirk Cameron professes to being an Atheist until he was 17. Nice set up for a story we know is fiction.

    …I did not look at it as an argument for or against God, it was simply an observation based on common sense.

    Yep, because common sense is what we all strive for. Who needs to actually test and do experiments when you have COMMON SENSE.

    The idea that nearly perfect stripes would have formed through years of decay, being of distinct and differing colors and without erosion lines, was just plain dumb.

    I thought this was a personal account not a copy and paste from carbon copy Creationist drivvel sites.

    If all of the earth looked like the Snake River Canyon, this theory might have fooled me, but it does not, so I did see through it.

    Why would it?

    I was puzzled at the time as to why so many scientists were so gullible, but I just figured that they were wrong and left it at that.

    I’m puzzled as to why you suddenly think you’re the smartest person in the room.

    Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory.

    Yep that gosh darn Grand Canyon Theory.

    How truly sad that a person could look at that evidence of the great worldwide flood that the Bible tells us about, and to walk away from it spouting a fairy tale about great ages of the earth.

    That would be because scientists don’t start with a conclusion and cherry pick evidence to support it.

  3. John Bebbington January 24, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    John, some of the layers show themselves as having been laid down by the wind. How do you get wind at the bottom of a flood?

    Also, there are burrows in some of the layers. How do you get burrows at the bottom of a flood?

    As for the silt, (ignoring that there is no known mechanism by which a flood could produce silt) how do you get silt settling out before larger-grained material?

    “I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.”

    What did Eric write a few days ago? “It is amazing to me how many times discussions with Evolutionists turn into arguing matches and lead to a lot of illogical name-calling. Tactics will turn ad hominem very quickly.”

    No, John, those with whom you disagree are not morons but highly intelligent people who have spent many years researching their subject and have concluded that the weight of evidence does not support your simplistic ideas of how the canyon was formed.

    I have only seen photos and films of the canyon but one thing I do know from my diligent researches when I was a six-year old on a beach in Norflok is that it is not possible to get vertical sides a foot deep (let alone a mile deep) in sediments which have been freshly deposited and are still full of water.

  4. Nathan Warden January 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    Thanks CSE for another great article. The Lord bless you all :)

  5. rodger klotz January 24, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Maybe you should have picked up a copy of intro to geology.

  6. Duane January 24, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    Sooo, let me get this straight. Because you don’t understand basic geology or chemistry you consider it a fairy tale, but the talking snake and the rib woman and the 500 year old drunk who makes a wooden ark and gathers all the animals in the world together (including sloths and koalas) while the world is covered in a deluge caused by an invisible man who was punishing mankind for being non-righteous (drunks not included) is perfectly sensible history?

    By the way, what is this agenda? Reality? Of course, everyone knows reality has a satanic bias.

  7. Duane January 24, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    I’ve read your other two essays on this site and I seriously question you were ever an agnostic. They appear to be cut and paste from typical creationist rhetoric. (Evolution does not claim all things get more complicated, only that they change. Losing appendages does not violate evolution.)

  8. Jeff Brace January 25, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    Wow, there must be alot of atheists out of work. They have nothing to do but comment on christian web sites. Now that is really boing :)

  9. John Bebbington January 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    Some years ago John Hinton wrote another article under the general heading of “Things that make evolutionists look stupid” about whiskers on cats, dogs, reptiles and horses and which was put up on the CSE website.

    A fellow creationist Greg Neyman from Answers in Creation wrote an article in response pointing out a number of very silly errors in the article which, rather than making evolutionists look stupid, made creationists in general and Hinton in particular look extremely stupid.

    Neyman wrote to Kent (or “Mr Hovind” as he calls him) as follows:

    “Your series of articles, with the title TTMELS (Things that makes evolutionists look stupid), would seem to be counterproductive to winning souls. If we are to love the unsaved, and win them for Christ, calling them stupid will only drive them further away. Using such terms is actually helping the enemy, Satan, and not Christ. As a Christian, I have to wonder whose side you are on. You should consider removing these articles, or rewriting them. In essence, they make “Christians look stupid.””

    Neyman concluded: “I’m still waiting on a response from CSE. When I checked their website on 22 February 2006, the article on whiskers was removed from their site.”

    As was normal practice with Kent (and now with Eric) Neyman never received a written response. No manners, you see. Eric can put such behaviour down to poor parenting – but what was Kent’s excuse?

  10. John Bebbington January 25, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Jeff Brace wrote: “Wow, there must be alot of atheists out of work. They have nothing to do but comment on christian web sites. Now that is really boing”

    This is a christian website? It doesn’t show; I thought it was an anti-evolution site. With the Texas State Board of Education still trying to get anti-evolutionism into the school textbooks some of us think it is important to put in our half-penn’orth in support of real science wherever we can.

    I assume, Jeff, that as a regular contributor you, by your own analysis (but unlike me), must be out of work. Bad luck.

  11. David McCrea January 25, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    Jeff,

    The atheists you refer to appear to be mainly brits. Since they’ve done such a bang-up job destroying Christianity on the island and the rest of Europe, their only alternative is to comment on a Christian website in the states.

    Which also explains why Dawkins spends so much energy spreading his poisonous lies here in America. He’d be preaching to the choir if he stayed home. Speaking of which…

  12. Duane January 26, 2011 at 12:26 am #

    @Jeff Brace January 25th at 10:01 am

    “Wow, there must be alot of atheists out of work. They have nothing to do but comment on christian web sites. Now that is really boing :)”

    This isn’t a “Christian Website”, it’s one that ostensibly is challenging mainstream science and countering with its own. However, the science it criticizes is little more than Straw Man constructions that don’t reflect real science and the “science” it offers in response is flawed pseudoscience with little or no credibility. Usually it is sourced from biased creationists who ignore all evidence that contradicts their preconceived notions (and actually have to sign a document to that effect) or by outright cranks who also believe in other nonsense that ruins their credibility (as our erstwhile host does). Who is this site for, if not to convince those who need convincing? Is it to preach to the choir? Even the choir deserves accurate, truthful information. You have the right to your own opinion, but you don’t have the right to your own reality.

    One of the things I read here often is the justification that Jesus believed it, so it must be true. This means we must call in the credibility of Jesus. If he wasn’t who you think he was, then your facts have to stand on their own. Sites like this put a “scientific” spin on irrational beliefs hoping the credibility of science will lends itself the veneer of truth. Time and time again, Hovind re et Fils present their assertions hit and run without backing them up, in in the rare event they reply they point to a crank as their source.

    What it comes down to is, do you care if what you believe is true or is it enough to be comforted with beliefs that might be false? Rationalism doesn’t have all the answers, but so far it has proven to be the most reliable method for discovering the truth. No one gives us our answers. If we don’t know something, we make an effort to do so. Or you can pretend to have answers than aren’t really answers but assertions made up by goat herders 2500 years ago trying to make sense of their world. Personally, I prefer to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. It is impossible to gain expertise in everything, so I prefer my sources to be legitimate and accurate rather than dogmatic and wrong.

  13. Duane January 26, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    This appears to just be a cut and paste from an article written around October 2009. There’s a whole series of these nonsensical articles and after reading them I again call out the premise that the author was ever an “agnostic”. Is our host lying to us yet again? These little lies add up, Eric.

  14. Jeff Brace January 26, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    @ John B. Mercy, you found another christian who does not agree with the Hovinds? Stop the presses, you have brought us to our knees. NOT. You are not changing minds here, really you are not.

    @ Duane and Roger and Andrew, and your qualifications would be?

    Why waste your time here with the dumb YEC people?

  15. Peter Bilmer January 26, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    Hey CSE-team,

    thanks for the interesting article!
    Although some comments are just awful and terrible to read.
    Why do you let them there? As a warning?

    John you can add this to your article:

    “Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event”
    from
    Nature Geoscience 3, 477 – 481 (2010)
    Published online: 20 June 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo894

    Greetings
    God bless!

    • CSE January 26, 2011 at 9:12 am #

      Peter,
      We allow people to openly respond (only removing obscenities and other inappropriate language) because we are fine with the debate. People are entitled to their opinions, even if we disagree with them. We understand that our message is “controversal” in the eyes of many; and, as Christians, we need to know how to answer questions from skeptics, respond to scoffers, and speak truth – even when it is unpopular to do so. On this page, those that support the ministry of CSE, and live a life of faith in Christ, have an opportunity to openly discuss their beliefs with those that directly oppose them. Our prayer is that through some of the discussions on this site, seeds of truth would be planted in people’s hearts, as well as the faith of fellow believers be strengthened by the truth of God’s Word! Thanks for your support!

  16. andrew Ryan January 26, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    CSE: “We need to know how to answer questions from skeptics, respond to scoffers, and speak truth”

    You certainly do need to know that.

    Could you please give a cite for the Sir Arthur Keith quote you gave on a recent blog. It would immeasurably add to your creditability if you could explain where it comes from. We’ve established that it wasn’t made WHEN you claimed (several years after Keith died), and we’ve established that it did not appear WHERE you claimed (Keith did not write the introduction to the 100th edition of Origin of Species.

    This doesn’t make you liars, just mistaken.

    This isn’t about opinion or belief, it comes down to facts. Since you acknowledge the importance of speaking the truth, could you either provide an alternative source for the quote, or admit that it is fabricated and move on.

    Many thanks, Andrew

  17. Jeff Brace January 26, 2011 at 11:28 am #

    @ David , contrary to your opinion this is a christian website. I am retired/disabled but I do keep busy. It amazes me how important it is for people to make themselves a “rut in the road” so to speak. Don’t you have anything better to do than spread hate at those you disagree with?

    @ others,
    The “Evolution is fact” and “Science has proven evolution” arguments are fallacious. The “faulty appeal to authority” fallacy is common – just because the “experts” believe something doesn’t prove it’s true. The terms “science” and “evolution” are often used with “shifting” meanings – the fallacy of equivocation. Since science (observation, testing, repeating) is true, then evolutionary science (inference) must also be true. Since we observe evolution (change), evolution (common descent) is true. This is like arguing, “Running is not good for your health. My nose was running, and I was quite sick.”

    Not only is there not any real proof of evolution or the Big Bang, both of them are impossible. The Big Bang Theory involves a massive explosion of gases that created everything we once have (prior to evolution). There are two problems with this theory. The first is this: where did those gases that were part of the explosion come from? Without a God creating them the only possible answer is spontaneous generation or an eternal universe. The idea of an eternal universe is much like what Christians believe about God, that it has always been around. An eternal universe is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that usable energy is constantly being turned into non-usable energy. This means two things: 1) There was a point in time when all the energy was usable and 2) Eventually all the usable energy will be used up. So the universe cannot be eternal or we would have a never ending supply of energy and if it was eternal then all the energy would have been used up sometime in the infinite past and would have resulted in “heat death”. So, the only possible solution is spontaneous generation and this has never been observed and pretty much proven impossible. The next problem with The Big Bang Theory is that after the explosion there was more mass, matter, and energy than before the explosion. The problem here is that the Laws of Conservation tell us that neither mass, matter, or energy can ever be lost or gained. The Big Bang Theory violates all three of these laws and is therefore impossible.

    Evolution is also impossible once you hit a certain point. We all know that Micro-Evolution or Natural Selection is a truth of nature. We can observe animals changing and adapting on a small scale, but at a certain point evolution can go no further. Our DNA encodes for each and every characteristic we have. Random mutations and differences in our DNA are what causes us to have different characteristics. While these mutations can result in some pretty drastic changes, they have never been observed to result in completely new characteristics. Without the DNA for feathers then there is no mutation that could result in feathers. Without the DNA for scales there is no mutation that could result in scales. Without the DNA for gills there is no mutation that could result in gills. If there were mutations that could result in these things we would see diseases where non-feathered things grew feathers, non-scaled organisms grew scales, etc. Evolutionists might fight back and say that these are a result of many small changes over time, but how can you sort of have feathers, sort of have eyes, sort of have scales? Furthermore, we have never seen non-intelligent things become intelligent. What sort of change in DNA could cause something to think? It has never been seen and never will be seen because such a mutation is not possible. Non-living things will never become intelligent or living no matter how much time you give them. Evolution on a large scale, or Macro-Evolution has not only never been observed, it isn’t even possible.

    Perhaps if you took the time to read the content of the website’s aticles instead of trying to pick apart blog posts you would see there is not intention to decieve but rather a spirit of spreading the truth of the Bible. Making comments like “why don’t you read a geology book” and the like do little to get to the bottom of the truth of the subject.

    I wish we could link here to content and references. I thank the many friends I have made on creation websites for their thoughts and teachings.

  18. Jeff Brace January 26, 2011 at 11:33 am #

    @ Duane, “One of the things I read here often is the justification that Jesus believed it, so it must be true. This means we must call in the credibility of Jesus.”
    I doubt you could find a single reference where Eric or Dr Hovind stated this.
    On the contrary, we stand on the premise that the starting point is the Word of God. Who are we to know the mind of God.

  19. Jeff Brace January 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm #

    @ Duane “This appears to just be a cut and paste from an article written around October 2009. There’s a whole series of these nonsensical articles and after reading them I again call out the premise that the author was ever an “agnostic”. Is our host lying to us yet again? These little lies add up, Eric.”
    I guess you must be Creskin eh? Now you are able to tell what another persons thoughts were even though you have never met them? WOW

  20. Duane January 26, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    @Stephen Holshouser January 25th at 10:48 pm

    Sure; how did He know where it (Donkey) would be tied up, or that no one ever sat on it, or exactly what the owner would say or that he would let him go? But this is just one of a great many. When else do you think that prophecy was or will be fulfilled?

    Seriously? Because small towns in ancient never had donkeys (and/or colts, there is discrepancy) in them. Plus, at what point are we told that things were as Jesus described? Someone else (or was it you?) earlier mentioned a “prophecy” of Jesus where he told someone to catch a fish and there would be a coin in its mouth. I searched in vain for the verse that says they found it and Jesus was right. This is another one of those empty verses that really doesn’t mean anything. Mere assertions in the text that have no further confirmation or mention in the texts.

    “But near as I can tell, Jesus did not become King of Israel”

    He was born King and is now, not of this world, though, or of National Israel.

    The great Cop Out. Jesus did not become King of Israel. He died tortured like a criminal. As Kent is so fond of saying about fossils, the only thing we know is that Jesus died. Whatever he did after that is not in evidence. Anything after that is speculation.

    “did not build the Third Temple”

    What verse specifically contains this prophecy? As far as I know, the Temple being rebuilt has already been fulfilled, spiritually and physically. (Nehemiah and Ezra for the physical fulfillment, and Acts 15:11-17 for the spiritual fulfillment)

    According the a few rabbis I looked up (they all say about the same thing, they aren’t as open to interpretation as Christianity and its 30,000 denominations are, but they have lived with the same religion for several thousand years, not invented a cult that pretty much ignores the first section of its holy book-unless it is used to justify some bigotry), “Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).” The Temple has yet to be rebuilt. I’m pretty sure there’s a Mosque there. Spiritual fulfillment is speculation. More of that invisible evidence.

    “did not gather all the Jews back to Israel”

    I don’t know of any biblical prophecy written after the Babylonian captivity that says this will happen again in the future. Can you name one? As far as I know, this has already been fulfilled.( Jeremiah 29:10-14, Ezekiel 11:14-17, 12:21-28, Daniel 9:1-2, 7.)

    As per the Rabbi: “Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).”

    “did not usher in an era of world peace, etc.”

    Physical peace, no; but spiritual peace between God and reconciled men, yes. Jesus said Himself that He came not to send peace on the earth, but a sword, because much persecution would come to His followers. The physical peace will come, though.

    Once again, we dip into the invisible well of spirituality and hope for something to come. He either did it or did not. I am to take your word for it that God and me are reconciled? The New Testament so far has been little more than Spin with invisible evidence rather than anything factual. For the record, from the Rabbi: “Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)”

    “Others refer to a warrior king, which Jesus most certainly did not become”

    Just wait… (Rev 19)

    Isn’t Revelations supposed to be something to come? In that case, Jesus did not fulfill that prophecy. Saying that he WILL SOON, is not the same as saying he did.

    As far as the rest, it doesn’t matter how many correlations you find with Jesus and the Old Testament. If he fails to meet the primary requirement of being the messiah, then the rest is irrelevant. Anything involving spiritualism is spin and speculation and conveniently unprovable. Since Jesus did not accomplish anything expected of the messiah, the role was redefined to fit.

  21. Taylor Kleve January 26, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    For all of you who are stating that Creationists don’t have a logical explanation… we know that we “believe” in the flood. We are not using taxpayers’ dollars and teaching our belief as science. That’s the major difference between evolution and creation. If you want to believe the earth is billions of years old, and the Colorado River formed the Grand Canyon, then by all means, go ahead, but when you can prove it, then you can teach it as science.
    Both creation and evolution are religions. We have freedom of religion in this country, which guarantees you the freedom to believe what you’d like, and me the freedom to believe what I’d like. I don’t mind telling you that you are wrong.
    And, even if evolution was accepted by the majority, that doesn’t make it right. There have been many times when the majority was wrong. The majority thought the earth was flat in the 14-1500’s; the majority thought the earth was the center of the universe in Galileo Galilei’s time; the majority thought blood was created in the liver and burned up as fuel for the muscles due to Galen. How exactly has evolution benefited science anyway?
    And I have a question– what is the evidence that we are ignoring? Could it be that you are ignoring all evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions? Please feel free to share the evidence I am supposedly ignoring. In all the research I’ve done I have yet to find real evidence for evolution. Most of the “evidence” that is offered has been proven inaccurate. You are now going to ask me where my evidence is, and I am going to ask you to read the first paragraph of my comment again.

  22. GeologyGuy January 27, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    @ John Bebbington in regards to “some of the layers show themselves as having been laid down by the wind. How do you get wind at the bottom of a flood?”

    Interesting question, wind is a movement of air from an area of high pressure to an area of low pressure. If you change the medium from air to water is there any phenomenon with a similar characteristic? Of course there is, it is called a current. A current will lay down beds in a similar manner as wind would. Not only that, currents change direction like winds will. You can have sediment deposited in opposite directions in a single day with a tidal fluctuation. I’ve pulled sediment cores out of the banks of the Allegheny River north of Pittsburgh with distinct layers of alternating silt, clay, and gravel. Each layers makeup is directly related to the competence of the stream which varies with the speed of the water. A world wide flood would have this on an amazing scale with a shift in competence several times a day.

    “Also, there are burrows in some of the layers. How do you get burrows at the bottom of a flood?”

    There are a few simple explanations that can account for that. First if the layers were laid down in the flood they would be soft and not solid rock. Just throwing it out there as a possible explanation: possible air or gas pocket? A massive flood churning sediment can easily trap an air pocket. The variance in density would cause the pocket to migrate towards the surface thus giving the appearance of a burrow. Unlikely yes, possible absolutely. Another possibility: there were many living things that can live in an anaerobic environment for quite some time, if suddenly trapped in a soft sediment layer one can argue a burrow to freedom that didn’t succeed.

    I’ve only been a geologist for the better part of a decade and what would I know? It makes many people uncomfortable to leave the safety of evolution because they are afraid of being accountable to God. A world wide flood just makes more sense to me than a slow sedimentation event.

  23. John Bebbington January 28, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Jeff Brace wrote: “contrary to your opinion this is a christian website.”

    So, if it wasn’t for us non-creationists interrupting your thought processes, would you be here commenting? If so, what about ?

    “Don’t you have anything better to do than spread hate at those you disagree with?”

    I haven’t seen any “hate” by either side. There has been some insulting language by creationists against the rest of us but that is just water off a duck’s back.

    “The Big Bang Theory involves a massive explosion of gases that created everything we once have (prior to evolution).”

    That’s not a definition I recognise.

    “An eternal universe is not possible because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that usable energy is constantly being turned into non-usable energy.”

    Not quite correct but near enough. Will the universe come to an end when the last light goes out or will it continue to expand eternally? If not, what will stop the expansion continuing?

    “The next problem with The Big Bang Theory is that after the explosion there was more mass, matter, and energy than before the explosion.”

    Who says? And what is the difference between mass and matter in this context?

    “The problem here is that the Laws of Conservation tell us that neither mass, matter, or energy can ever be lost or gained. The Big Bang Theory violates all three of these laws and is therefore impossible.”

    Who says that anything was created at the Big Bang? Apart from creationists, that is.

    “Without the DNA for scales there is no mutation that could result in scales. (etc)”

    How do you know? Where is your evidence? According to Acts 9:18 Saul (before he evolved into Paul) had scales on his eyes so, as nobody else had them, presumably he suffered from a mutation which gave him scales. Your arguments against evolution have been weighed in the scales and found wanting. :-)

    “Perhaps if you took the time to read the content of the website’s aticles instead of trying to pick apart blog posts you would see there is not intention to decieve but rather a spirit of spreading the truth of the Bible.”

    The bible doesn’t mention radio-dating mechanisms. So why does CSE put up articles on the subject and then fail to correct them when clear evidence is offered which refutes the claims made? Is that not an intention to deceive?

  24. andrew Ryan January 28, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    Jeff Brace: “Perhaps if you took the time to read the content of the website’s aticles instead of trying to pick apart blog posts you would see there is not intention to decieve but rather a spirit of spreading the truth of the Bible. ”

    Jeff, you say this, but I’ve posted a dozen times asking for a cite on a SINGLE claim that Kent made regarding a purported quote from Sir Arthur Keith. No answer has come back. If Kent made a mistake he, or the cite mods should just admit it and move on. Until then, I cannot accept that the intention is not to mislead. To continue claiming something you KNOW is not correct is not a mistake, it’s deliberately misleading.

  25. Stephen Holshouser January 28, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Duane,

    It doesn’t matter what the “Rabbi” said; what saith the scriptures? I asked you to name one specific chapter and verse prophecy written AFTER the Babylonian captivity, that states the Jews would be gathered back to there land or where there was a mention of a 3rd Temple in the future. All you produced was commentary from some rabbi and scripture that mentions nothing about a 3rd Temple and that was written decades and even hundreds of years before the Jews returned from Babylon to the Promised Land and rebuilt the Temple. This was a perfect fulfillment of scripture, so why arbitrarily say it is supposed to happen again in the future with no scripture that says so?

    You still did not answer the question of why you believe Jesus had to fulfill every last OT prophecy about Himself within His first advent to be the Messiah? Who made that rule? But to say the He “didn’t accomplish anything expected of the Messiah” is just ridiculous.

    One last thing; I just want to point out to you the glaring inconsistancy of your position. You claim to be a “rational” thinker and want to “believe as few false things as possible,” while at the same time believing that everything made itself and that you came from a rock by natural processes. Maybe that’s where the hard-headedness comes from… your great-great-great-great… Grampa Igneous… or perhaps from Grandma Metamorphic? : )

  26. rodger klotz January 28, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Hey GeologyGuy and Taylor Kleve,

    Where are the millions of fossilized humans that died along side all of the other fossilized animals that were whiped out by the flood?

  27. David McCrea January 28, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    JEFF wrote about DAVID MCCREA, “contrary to your opinion this is a christian website. I am retired/disabled but I do keep busy. It amazes me how important it is for people to make themselves a “rut in the road” so to speak. Don’t you have anything better to do than spread hate at those you disagree with?”

    DAVID MCCREA RESPONDS to JEFF: Did you mix my name up with Duane, who wrote “this is not a Christian website” in a previous post? I’m a YEC and serving the Lord everyday, so I was wondering if you might want to clarify you meant to direct your comment and response to Duane, an atheist, rather that me, a believer.

  28. Taylor Kleve January 29, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    @ rodger klotz

    Humans would have tried to survive as long as they possibly could, it’s just our nature. Instead of dying and being buried quickly, they would have been some of the last creatures to die, and would have rotted rather than fossilized. And just a statement, we haven’t excavated the whole earth so there could still be human fossils out there.

  29. Jeff Brace January 29, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    @ andrew Jeff, you say this, but I’ve posted a dozen times asking for a cite on a SINGLE claim that Kent made regarding a purported quote from Sir Arthur Keith. No answer has come back. If Kent made a mistake he, or the cite mods should just admit it and move on. Until then, I cannot accept that the intention is not to mislead. To continue claiming something you KNOW is not correct is not a mistake, it’s deliberately misleading.

    And somehow that is my fault correct? I have no control ove the site.

  30. Jeff Brace January 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    @ john B This is a christian website? It doesn’t show; I thought it was an anti-evolution site. With the Texas State Board of Education still trying to get anti-evolutionism into the school textbooks some of us think it is important to put in our half-penn orth in support of real science wherever we can.

    I assume, Jeff, that as a regular contributor you, by your own analysis (but unlike me), must be out of work. Bad luck.

    No I am not out of work. My point was that I tend to post at places where I clearly agree with the content. I don’t waste time going to atheist websites and clog up their blogs with creationist views.

  31. Jeff Brace January 29, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    @ john b

    Once again you waste time with what you think are witty comebacks but you really didn’t address any issue. Another common argument is changing the meaning of certain claims such as big bang, micro and macro evolution. Purely a waste of yours and my time again.

  32. Jeff Brace January 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    @ David McCrea

    I did do that and I apologize. Hope all is forgiven :)

  33. Duane January 29, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    @Stephen Holshouser January 28th at 3:55 pm

    Duane,

    It doesn’t matter what the “Rabbi” said; what saith the scriptures? I asked you to name one specific chapter and verse prophecy written AFTER the Babylonian captivity, that states the Jews would be gathered back to there land or where there was a mention of a 3rd Temple in the future. All you produced was commentary from some rabbi and scripture that mentions nothing about a 3rd Temple and that was written decades and even hundreds of years before the Jews returned from Babylon to the Promised Land and rebuilt the Temple. This was a perfect fulfillment of scripture, so why arbitrarily say it is supposed to happen again in the future with no scripture that says so?

    You still did not answer the question of why you believe Jesus had to fulfill every last OT prophecy about Himself within His first advent to be the Messiah? Who made that rule? But to say the He “didn’t accomplish anything expected of the Messiah” is just ridiculous.

    If he did, then the Jews would have accepted him. The messiah was supposed to become King, and Jesus did not. Jesus preached a little while and then he was executed as a criminal. That alone is enough. Anything else claimed, like he became King of Heaven is unprovable nonsense invented by Paul. He accomplished NOTHING. But as interesting as this is, I don’t believe the Old Testament, regardless, so It’s all academic. It’s still a vile place to claim to get your morals.

    One last thing; I just want to point out to you the glaring inconsistancy of your position. You claim to be a “rational” thinker and want to “believe as few false things as possible,” while at the same time believing that everything made itself and that you came from a rock by natural processes. Maybe that’s where the hard-headedness comes from, your great-great-great-great, Grampa Igneous, or perhaps from Grandma Metamorphic? : )

    Seriously? I took you for reasonably intelligent (deluded, perhaps), but then you throw Hovind’s strawman nonsense at me? One of the first things I ever posted in here was a condemnation of that Hovind lie. No scientist says we came from a rock. The Genesis story you guys are so fond of claims we came from dirt! Oh, but that’s perfectly sensible. We won’t mention the talking snake, the rib-woman, the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Lame Metaphors and the childish grudge God holds for setting them up. It’s just an ant and an aardvark away from being an Aesop. It’s not history, folks. I can’t believe in 2011 we’re even having that conversation. But I have yet to see the Hovinds EVER tell the truth about the opposing side, which is essentially the same as lying. If there was any actual truth to anything the Hovinds say then it would be necessary for them to misrepresent the other side to bolster their arguments.