steaknchips

Trees broken off during a flood would float until they became water-logged. Then, the denser and larger diameter of the trees would sink lower in the water, putting those trees in an upright position. Later, after completely sinking, the upright trees would then be buried in sediment. This happened to many trees when Mount St. Helens erupted. Any scuba diver in Spirit Lake can find many half-buried, upright trees at the bottom of the lake today.

http://www.terragalleria.com/america/washington/mount-st-helens/picture.uswa11402.html

This would explain, or at least could show evidence of a similar occurrence during a catastrophic flood (Noah). Hence the polystrate fossil trees we see today (which span the globe).

Where today can we see a tree that was alive 10,000 or 20,000 years ago and is mostly but not completely buried in an upright position?

Are we supposed to believe these polystrate fossil trees died and remained partly buried for thousands or even millions of years until they became completely buried and fossilized?

These polystrate fossils that span multiple layers reject and disprove the concept that geologic layers always represent long periods of time. Therefore, dating fossils/rocks by the layer of earth they are found in to support the theory of evolution is not valid.

http://www.icr.org/article/what-are-polystrate-fossils/

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs..

Sorry if its upset some..

Talking of you standing by your beliefs I believe Laura is still waiting for an answer to a question she asked at least twice.

I don't believe for one minute you missed it which suggests you dodged it and that while you claim to stand by your beliefs you don't actually have the courage of your convictions.

Which question is that?

Im genuine and stand by my beliefs..

Sorry if its upset some..

How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

Quite simply, the sediment around it build up around it, If it is something like a tree trunk (which it obviously is) then it will remain in situ until covered over, the true date of the fossil will be found by dating the rock immediately below the core of the trunk.

It would rot!

It cannot possibly remain "insitu" . Each strata layer "is meant" to denote many, many years of time(according to evolutionists). Yet these polystrate fossils that are all over the world, stretch through "many" layers of strata.

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results.

So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence.

You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead.

Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place?

I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind.

Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Jesus Christ.

You're giving evidence THAT YOU'VE ALREADY REFUTED.

You don't see how that's an issue?

You said carbon dating is bullcrap.

You're then giving evidence BASED ON CARBON DATING.

You fail to see the issue here?

No im not...Im giving you evidence of a, a flood and b, a fossil that stretched "through" strata layers? Of which evolutionists tell us denoted different times in our history..

How can a fossil stretch through different time zones?

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

Yes you've said you don't believe in them because they give incorrect results.

So I'm saying we can obviously rule out any evidence for the flood based on them because according to you carbon dating is wrong. After dismissing carbon dating you can't then put forward an explanation for something that uses carbon dating as evidence.

You really are quite stupid, if you can't understand simple points like that then it's no wonder you're confused by science to the point you have to reject it and insert superstition instead.

Hold on a minute....Im the one giving all the evidence here..Where's your(or science) evidence the flood didnt take place?

I'l also give you evidence of the flood but on doing so, instead of looking to attack all the time, just have an open mind.

Here is evidence of the flood and it disproves the evolution side off things regarding strata layers denoting millions of years per layer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Ive answered the carbon dating and radiometric dating method earlier in this thread..

All evidence points towards creationism?

Trollololololololol

How many do you want?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1314725/As-researchers-prove-Red-Sea-really-parted--How-science-backs-Bibles-best-stories.html

Its 2012 and NOTHING in the bible has been disproven as of yet...Strange!

In fact Wise so close to being kicked out from Harvard for believing in creation, shows you just how science works...How many just keep quiet to save their reputation I wonder?

I know we have the ones that have come out...And been discredited all the same,goes with the territory I suppose...

This is how science works:

Create theory, attempt to disprove theory, either throw away, refine, or accept theory.

This is not how science works:

Believe in something, attempt to find evidence to support belief, fail to find it, or find evidence that contradicts it, believe in it still anyway.

The 2nd is what Wise attempted, and he should be shunned from the scientific community for it, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SCIENCE.

Exactly...Your not allowed to believe in creation because it goes against science. Even when all evidence points towards it...

In fact Wise so close to being kicked out from Harvard for believing in creation, shows you just how science works...How many just keep quiet to save their reputation I wonder?

I know we have the ones that have come out...And been discredited all the same,goes with the territory I suppose...

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

Really? What makes you think that?

And what are your opinions of Darwin?

Read "Evolution a theory in crisis"..

Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method?

I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to.

The Kurt Wise that said that even if all the evidence pointed against creationism he'd still believe in it because it's what the bible says?

The guy isn't a scientist. He might have a phd in geology, but he's no scientist.

Before that quote he also said(as a fine geologist he is)he would be 1st admit it, if evidence proved otherwise.

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

Really? What makes you think that?

And what are your opinions of Darwin?

Read "Evolution a theory in crisis"..

Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method?

I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to.

Why attack Dawkins as full of shit if you're so sure of your position?

Im just answering a post on a forum site...Im not going out my way to write a full essay to go public on my thoughts of Dawkins..

Why does Dawkins feel the need(a man in his position) to go out of his way to try and discredit Kurt Wise? Who he himself hasnt said a bad word about anyone? And Gould even keeping him in Harvard(as he was such a fine/clever student), when he was going to be kicked out "just because he believed in creation"...

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

Really? What makes you think that?

And what are your opinions of Darwin?

Read "Evolution a theory in crisis"..

Also love the way Dawkins attacks Kurt Wise...Why do that, if your so sure in your method?

I also notice how Kurt Wise didnt bite back..He dosnt need to.

Dawkins is full of sh1t...

*We all live for our desires; We are "by nature" children of wrath..

Ephesians 2;3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

*We go to heaven through grace and faith...NOT WORKS.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Ephesians 2:9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Risso,

For what its worth I agree with Don entirely..

So you agree you are a complete hypocrite then ?

Yes..

Risso,

For what its worth I agree with Don entirely..

I'd say the world's a fantastic place compared to the shit that went down in the bible.

Having visited New Zealand twice it is a very beautiful place with comparitively few people.

That's strange, after billions and billions of years of evolution, I would have thought the place would be jam packed.

Gareth you have got free will..Just because God "knows" what is going to happen dosnt mean you dont have free will.God is outside of time...Your thinking is inside of time.

God is all knowing; 1 John 3;20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

We cannot understand; 1 corinthians 2;14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Heres another answer you could read on the subject.

http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will

:oops: sorry double post.

Those of us that are parents know that are little loved ones sometimes do the wrong things. Sometimes they need a telling off, a smack, or someother disciplinary measure.

How do you know they do wrong things?

Some of you were asking "If God knows what is going to happen, how can we have free will"..

I have found this;

Have you ever had a thought, opinion, an idea or a feeling of your own or are you just an embodiment of a selection of tedious cultish websites?

Its not a cult website mate...

Research Ministry

CARM is a 501©3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine, and Theology. CARM analyzes religions such as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Universalism, Wicca, etc., and compares them to the Bible. We also analyze secular ideas such as abortion, atheism, evolution, and relativism. In all our analyses we use logic and evidence to defend Christianity and promote the truth of the Bible which is the inspired word of God.

Good read for anyone finding this thread interesting;

http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

and

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

We don't have free will anyway.

We live in a deterministic universe, everything you do you were always going to do, it's just a result of chemical reactions in your brain.

If we could model the human brain with 100% precision you'd be able to see exactly what someone is going to do.

Here read this;

Okay atheists, I have a question for you. But before I get to the question, I must first make it clear that I know there are different kinds of atheists. Some are strict materialists, some are not. Some are more agnostic. Some ‘lack belief in God’ while others openly deny God. But, this video is aimed at those atheists who believe that the only thing in the universe is matter and energy and its various forms. This would mean that there is no supernatural, no God, no spirits, no miracles.

Okay, for those of you who fit this criteria, here’s my question. If matter and energy are all that exist in the universe, then how do you rationally defend the idea that you have free will and can properly use logic?

The point is this - how can you as a strict materialist really trust your own mind? I mean, if everything in the universe is matter and energy then that means your physical brain is bound by the laws of physics. Think about this. In a purely materialistic worldview where the human brain is nothing more than the summation of chemicals and brain wiring, how do you justify having both free will and rationality?

You see, it’s a brain problem.

How does one chemical state of the brain that is altered by the electrical firing of neurons, which leads to another chemical state in your brain, produce free thought and logical inference?

If your brain is hardwired and constrained by the physical laws, then it cannot act outside of those laws or outside the limits of the hardwiring. It is, in essence, caged in by the limits of physical properties and cannot break free of them.

This would mean that whatever stimulus you receive, such as being asked a question, will result in a specific response that must be in accordance with whatever arrangement your brain’s nuero-chemical wiring requires.

Let me illustrate. If you could be exactly reproduced in an identical environment and your other ‘you’ was asked a question, it, just like you, would produce the exact same response. If this scenario were played over and over again, you’d always respond the exact same way. You’d have no choice but to do so. Why? Because, in strict materialism, you are nothing more than the arrangement of chemicals and wiring in your brain which will automatically produce a specific result when faced with specific stimulus. So then, how are you free? And, how can you trust your logical conclusions since they too are merely the result of the changes of chemical states in your physical brain? How do you know you aren’t believing lies about reality, and how would you know you’re not being illogical in your conclusions? After all, it could be your brain wiring that makes you “think” you’re believing truth and also being logical.

Now, if you say that my reasoning is flawed, then my response is that you are forced to reply that way because of the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain.

Or perhaps you “believe” you have free will. Maybe you “think” you’re logical. But then again, perhaps you are forced to believe and think that way due to the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain. I have to ask. How do you know that the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain doesn’t just produce a set of processes that force you to think and feel a certain way so that, according to evolutionary theory, your genetics can be passed down to other generations? In this evolutionary, materialistic process, deception could be a reality provided it results in genetic descendants. This way, your atheism is nothing more than a set of chemical states in your brain which forces you into certain beliefs and behaviors so that genes are carried on throughout the centuries.

Now, dear materialistic atheist, it doesn’t matter how you respond to this video because you were programmed to respond that way given the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain. But don’t feel bad, it isn’t your fault. It really isn’t your free will. It is the illusion of free will produced by the neuro-chemical wiring in your brain that makes you say what you say and think that what you think is actually logical – even though it might not really be right. Don’t agree? Well, we both know why you don’t agree, don’t we?

http://carm.org/atheism-free-will-rationality

Some of you were asking "If God knows what is going to happen, how can we have free will"..

I have found this;

I've always been puzzled by the notion held by some people that if God knows what we are going to choose in the future, then we don't really have free will. They say that if God knows we are going to make a certain "free will" choice, then when it is time for us to make that choice, because God knows what we are going to choose, we are not really free to make a different choice and God's foreknowledge means we cannot have free will. Quite honestly, I do not see this as being a problem at all. Let's work with the idea that we are free-will creatures and that God knows all things, even our future choices. Furthermore, let's define free will in the Open Theist sense as the ability to make equal choices between options, regardless of a person's sinful nature.1 Given these conditions, are God's omniscience and our free will incompatible as the Open Theists claim?

Analogy

By analogy, knowing what will happen does not mean that we are preventing or causing that thing to happen. The sun will rise tomorrow. I am not causing it to rise nor am I preventing it from rising by knowing that it will happen. Likewise, if I put a bowl of ice-cream and a bowl of cauliflower in front of my child, I know for a fact which one is chosen - the ice cream. My knowing it ahead of time does not restrict my child from making a free choice when the time comes. My child is free to make a choice and knowing the choice has no effect upon her when she makes it.

Logic

Logically, God knowing what we are going to do does not mean that we can't do something else. It means that God simply knows what we have chosen to do ahead of time. Our freedom is not restricted by God's foreknowledge; our freedom is simply realized ahead of time by God. In this, our natural ability to make another choice has not been removed any more than my choice of what to write inside the parenthesis (hello) was removed by God who knew I would put the word "hello" in the parentheses before the universe was made. Before typing the word "hello," I pondered which word to write. My pondering was my doing and the choice was mine. How then was I somehow restricted in freedom when choosing what to write if God knew what I was going to do? No matter what choice we freely make, it can be known by God, and His knowing it doesn't mean we aren't making a free choice.

Time

Part of the issue here is the nature of time. If the future exists for God even as the present does, then God is consistently in all places at all times and is not restricted by time. This would mean that time was not a part of His nature to which God is subject, and that God is not a linear entity; that is, it would mean that God is not restricted to operating in our time realm and is not restricted to the present only. If God is not restricted to existence in the present, our present, then the future is known by God because God indwells the future as well as the present (and the past). This would mean that our future choices, as free as they are, are simply known by God. Again, our ability to choose is not altered or lessened by God existing in the future and knowing what we freely choose. It just means that God can see what we will freely choose -- because that is what we freely choose -- and knows what it is.

Part of the problem in Open Theism is that by restricting God to the present only, His existence is defined in such a way as to imply that time is part of His nature and that He is restricted to it. The question is whether or not this is logical as well as biblical. For an analysis of the logic of the position, please see A logical refutation of open theism.

Scripture

Scripturally, God inhabits eternity. Psalm 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born, or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." But this verse, an others, do not declare that God lives inside or outside of time. Rather, the Bible tells us that God is eternal. We can, however, note that the Bible teaches that God has no beginning or end. This is not definitive, but we may be able to conclude that since time is that non-spatial, continuous succession of events from the past, through the present, and into the future, and that since the word "beginning" denotes a relationship to and in time, and since God has no beginning, that time is not applicable to God's nature. In other words, God has no beginning and since "beginning" deals with an event in time, God is outside of time.

Nevertheless, the scriptures are not definitive on this issue and we can only conclude what they do say - namely, that God is eternal, without beginning, without end, and that He can accurately and precisely predict what will happen.

"As for you, O king, while on your bed your thoughts turned to what would take place in the future; and He who reveals mysteries has made known to you what will take place," (Dan. 2:29).

So, in relation to our free will and God's predictive ability, there is no biblical reason to assert that God's foreknowledge negates our freedom.

Conclusion

There is no logical reason to claim that if God knows what choices we are going to make that it means we are not free. It still means that the free choices we will make are free -- they are just known ahead of time by God. If we choose something different, then that choice will have been eternally known by God. Furthermore, this knowledge by God does not alter our nature in that it does not change what we are -- free to make choices. God's knowledge is necessarily complete and exhaustive because that is His nature, to know all things. In fact, since He has eternally known what all our free choices will be, He has ordained history to come to the conclusion that He wishes including and incorporating our choices into His divine plan: “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," (Acts 4:27-28). Why? Because God always knows all things: "...God is greater than our heart, and knows all things," (1 John 3:20).

http://carm.org/if-god-knows-our-free-will-choices-do-we-still-have-free-will