Theory of Creation?

juliod · Post by **juliod** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:09 pm

The big problem in the debate over creation is the utter lack of a "theory of creation".

They never tell us the where and when or their theory, and never tell us the evidence that supports it.

For example, Genesis is true, then the three most important events in history are 1) The Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Babel story.

Some creationists accept 4004 BC for the date of creation. But I have never seen anyone put a date on the other two.

The Babel story should be very easy to support, since all branches of linguistics should point to the location of the tower as the origin.

It's also remarkable that no creationist organization has yet built a replica ark and showed that it it seaworthy and capable of carrying a large number of animals, etc.

DanZ

axeplayer · Post by **axeplayer** » Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:46 pm

juliod wrote:
What kind of Creation model would please you? Basically, what do you want? Give me an outline of what you would like to see as far as a "Creation Theory"
As I said in the starting post to this thread, what we would look for (at first blush) is an account of the three main events in history: 1) Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Tower of Babel.

Give us round-figure dates for these and show how they fit into the historical framework of the various world cultures. You'll have some serious compression to do. My copy of the Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt begins at one million, seven-hundred-thousand years
before present.

Explain where the Tower was, and how each language group descends from it's location.

DanZ

Bishop Ussher dated the occurance of the flood at 2450 BC.

http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/bibchron.html

The date of the Tower of Babel event happened between 101 and 870 years after the flood(ill let you do the math.) The tower of babel was located in Mesopotamia, which is between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15005b.htm

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:37 am

axeplayer wrote:
juliod wrote:As I said in the starting post to this thread, what we would look for (at first blush) is an account of the three main events in history: 1) Creation, 2) The Flood, and 3) The Tower of Babel.

Give us round-figure dates for these and show how they fit into the historical framework of the various world cultures. You'll have some serious compression to do. My copy of the Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt begins at one million, seven-hundred-thousand years
before present.

Explain where the Tower was, and how each language group descends from it's location.
Bishop Ussher dated the occurance of the flood at 2450 BC.
http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/bibchron.html

The date of the Tower of Babel event happened between 101 and 870 years after the flood(ill let you do the math.) The tower of babel was located in Mesopotamia, which is between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15005b.htm

Okay, now we have some dates. How do we reconcile them with the Oxford Illustrated History of Ancient Egypt? And, as juliod said, how do we relate the existing language groups to Babel? Why do they show the relationships that they do? These are the kinds of things that a valid theory must accomodate.

Of course, the Theory of Creation must also reconcile Usshers' dates for creation and the Flood with some existing information, but we should get to those explanations after we've dealt with the questions juliod raised.

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:37 pm

The theory of evolutiion does not concern itself with the origins of life on this planet

OldAg wrote:Well knock me over with a feather!!! Wish that were true!! Seems to me that's the MAIN object of the exercise!! What the heck was (the worthless and discredited) Miller-Utley (sp?) experiment all about??

Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor!

Perhaps an analogy would be useful.

Would we consider the origin of matter as part of chemistry, or the origin of matter and energy as part of physics? Would we consider chemistry or physics to be discredited if chemists and physicists could only explain what happens to matter and energy based on the matter and energy they see, if they did not explain how the matter and energy got here?