note that this occured long before 1859

Lyell failed to adequately refute catastrophism and his extreme view soon became inconsistent with geological evidence. Study of the differences between modern oceanic sediments and ancient marine sedimentary rocks led geologists to recognize that different regimes of climate and sedimentation existed in the past. Lava flows in the ancient rock record reveal tremendous volcanic episodes dwarfing any of modern times. Meteorite impact craters in the earth's crust up to 50 miles in diameter have been well documented.

but apparently not recognized by anybody civilization on earth..if the earth were 6,000 years old, i would expect that one of these massive meteorites--and the worldwide aftermath--would have been noticed by some civilization..kind of like the egyptians completely missing the worldwide flood..continuing to exist right during the middle of it..odd how that works

These rationalists later systematically discounted the supernatural elements of the Bible as products of mythology.

christians have discounted every other religions supernatural events as mythology..why they dont hold the bible to the same standard, i dont know

He allowed a great interval of time for the earth to cool to its present temperature.

actually, the earth was--at its beginning--extremely hot

Rationalist criticism of the Biblical account of creation was greatly promoted by Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859).

and criticism some scientists has only increased with the increase in evidence..be it from anatomy, geology or biology

Darwin's observation that natural selection was an inherent process in the biological world led him to propose a rationalistic, evolutionary theory supposing that all the species had developed from a few separate stocks.

darwin wasnt the first to think of evolution

Geology of the present century has been dominated by rationalistic, evolutionary theories. Geologists have recently labored with models for the evolution of the earth's crust suggesting that a single supercontinent broke apart with fragments drifting to their present locations.

well, that is what the evidence shows..i believe it was a species of elephant(although i dont know for sure) that first made some geologist think of that..some of its fossils were on the west coast of africa, and the rest its fossils were found on the east coast of south america..also, dont forget the shapes of the two continents and how they sort of fit in with each other..(of course, not perfectly because they have been moving apart for millions of years)

For several years geologists have attempted to construct a plausible physical and chemical environment under which life could have spontaneously appeared from inorganic substances.

some scientists in germany, or some similar country, have been able to create the building blocks of life

The evolutionary-uniformitarian synthesis of the empirical and rationalistic frameworks of earth history appeared late in the nineteenth century and is presently the popular framework among modern geologists.

call me crazy, but i think it might be because the evidence suggests that view

The empirical uniformity is in vogue only to the extent that it helps promote the rationalistic, evolutionary view.

no..those views are the popular ones among scientists because that is what the evidence suggests

"Faith", as the author of Hebrews says, "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Faith forms a valid means of perceiving earth history for "through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Hebrews 11:3). As an alternate path to the perilous way of the empiricist, who trusts in his ability to observe the regularity of nature, or the rationalist, who trusts in his ability to frame a plausible conceptual history from basic immanent characteristics of matter, the Bible-believing Christian recognizes that his unaided mind and faculties of observation cannot solve the basic problems dealing with earth history.

well, isnt that too bad..you would think god could have thought about something like that..maybe theres limited room in heaven for the righteous ones or something

The Christian trusts in a revealed record from God, Himself,

and how do you know whether or not it is the revealed record of god?..how do you know that it was actually god that inspired it?

providing a basic framework within which the data of historical geology must be interpreted.

and if the evidence from geology pointed towards a literal interpretation of the bible, that is the view we would have..it does not..it does not even point towards a old-earth creationist view..because birds and fish dont appear first

Such a revealed history from a credible observer is the only way man can have absolute knowledge about the earth's history.

but man can never have absolute knowledge..man can never have absolute knowledge that the bible is the inspired word of god, or the koran is the inspired word of allah, etc.

The basic framework which the Christian is to accept by faith is the one plainly taught in Scripture. This framework is Biblical Catastrophism.

i hate this type of statement..the bible is open to interpretation..some accept it literally..some accept it figuratively..some accept the main message(god exists), but not literally..and some accept it as false

if you accept it as literal, then that is the way you would have to take it, i guess..but to say "christians must accept it this way" is bogus, because the bible is open to interpretation..if it werent, there wouldnt be catholics, methodists, lutherans, baptists, seventh-day adventists, etc.

The Bible-believing Christian accepts three great events which form a framework into which the data of geology are to be interpreted.

it would be nice to ICR to have the evidence of geology point to biblical creationism..however, it is not

First is the special creation of the universe by the spoken word of God (Genesis 1:1-31; Psalm 33:6,9; Hebrews 11:3). Second is the Fall, subsequent curse, and entrance of death into the world due to man's sin (Genesis 3:1-24; Romans 5:12; 8:19-22; I Corinthians 15:21). Third is the worldwide Noachian Flood (Genesis 6-9; Psalm 104:6-9; II Peter 3:5,6).

there are many problems with the worldwide flood..the problems with space, sanitation, food, and many others all exist..the answers end up like "god can do anything".."there were only 15 thousand species, and they have since evolved--but not in the same way as biologists and scientists say"..(and it has never quite been explained as to how these evolved..if evolution is possible in just that way, why is it not in others?..and which species have and havent evolved?..if it is possible for chimps and apes--90% same genes--to be related, why not humans and apes--98-99% same genes?..the definition of "biblical kind" has never been made..mike french said "it is usually genus," but how do you determine when it isnt the genus that divides them?).."they hibernated during the flood"..and maybe there are some others, but those are the ones that i have heard

Thus, the Bible is the Christian's vital key to the past. but that doesnt mean the right way to interpret the bible is the literalist, young-earth version

Among Bible-believing Christians there should be little disagreement about the status of the empirical, uniformitarian framework and the rationalistic, evolutionary framework. Both are untrue.

if you take the bible literally, then yes..but as i have said--and as i said on the earlier impact about that subject--the bible is open to interpretation..nevins is saying "you arent a true christian if you dont believe it literally"..he doesnt know that, though

Thus, the Apostle Peter specifically warned that scoffers of the faith would come in the last days denying the imminent and personal return of Christ, the great Flood, and the miraculous creation of the cosmos by the spoken word of God (II Peter 3:3-6).

so what?..that has been going on for a long, long time..the pagans denied it, muslims have denied it, and so on..saying that evolution is the first thing to do something like denying the great flood and the return of christ, is wrong in two ways..even if thats what evolution did, it wouldnt be the first time..and it doesnt say anything about the existence of a god or not..no biologist or scientists says "if evolution is true there is no god"..are some atheists?..yes..are some christians?..yes

but saying evolution denies god, or that it is an "atheistic philosophy" or "humanist philosophy" is a good way to get donations

The rationalistic approach epitomized by the evolutionary model is merely an exercise of man's wisdom,

actually, i give credit to satan for the creation of evolution

being an attempt to explain earth history by a conceptual scheme derived from the basic rudimentary and elementary characteristics inherent in nature.

so the evidence that is found on earth doesnt support biblical, young-earth creationism?

This system denies God from the outset.

no, it does not..tell me one scientists that has said evolution denies god..i doubt there is one..and, if there is, he is a poor scientists, because it is false

The previous comments do not imply that the Christian denies the validity of sense experience or reasoning procedures.

but that he is supposed to deny the scientific evidence that we have accumulated over the years for evolution

The rationalistic, evolutionary framework attempts to explain the origin of everything without need for a supernatural power by a naturally operating, integrative process.

that is because science deals with natural events..if it didnt deal with natural events, it wouldnt be science..we cannot observe supernatural things, and science is based on observations

Man in this view is a cosmic accident,

not necessarily

the product of the impersonal evolutionary process operating by blind chance over vast eons. On the basis of reason there is no meaning, purpose, or significance to man's existence.

not necessarily..see my constant statements that evolution does not deal with an existence of a god, gods, or none..all there are possible with evolution..atheism, monotheism, and polytheism

There is only pessimism concerning man

see above

Not all evolutionists are pessimists. There is presently a popular movement known as "optimistic evolutionary humanism" which believes that a glorious future is ahead for man. The leaders of this philosophy insist that man's normal evolutionary method (a cruel and immoral process of struggle and death leading to the survival of the fittest)

are you saying that the fittest animals are not most likely to have the most offspring?..the "fittest" animal refers to the one most likely to have offspring or have the most offspring..the "fittest" doesnt always survive to have more offspring than less "fit" animals..but, good and bad luck evens it out

must be eliminated in the future by the acceptance of a new evolutionary mystique stressing more virtuous behavior. Thus, according to the leaders of optimistic evolutionary humanism,

what is "optimistic evolutionary humanism"?..is this another call to the faithful for donations because the humanists have taken over the school?

In the Christian view man is created in the image of God.

and how did the christians come up with this?

Although man is deliberately sinful,

why did god allow such things?

he continues to be God's image-bearer and is of great value to God,

how can anything be of great value to an all-knowing, all-powerful being?

who made atonement through Christ for man's sin. Each person by trusting Christ as Saviour is restored to fellowship with God and given purpose and reward for all eternity.

so, without jesus, there is no purpose in life?..you do not need a god to have a purpose..if you think you do, thats too bad

Christianity is not a nebulous set of experiences or an irrational leap in the dark, but a faith which has substantial basis in valid experience and a rational groundwork in real evidence.

what real evidence is that?

complete version of impact #12

email me