Evolution is Not Atheistic

[Rod Carty]

Evidence that can be interpreted any way you like isn't really evidence. The whole point of gathering evidence in the first place is to come a certain conclusion.

Actually, the whole point of gathering evidence is supposed to be to come to truth. The whole point of the scientific method is to reduce as much as possible the bias of the one attempting to gain true knowledge. If bias doesn't come into it then the scientific method is not required.

What's the YEC interpretation for the abundance of meteor impacts we observe on Earth?

The interpretation is meteors impacted the earth. It would appear to me that you are implying more than you stated, namely that there is some problem for the YEC position that meteors have struck the earth. Could you explain what the problem is, please?

 

[patrick jane]

Oh, there it is in AnswersInGenesis. Or did you mean I should look it up in those atheistic science books like geology 101 where it where it is thoroughly refuted.

I posted three links. you look it up, none were Bible based

 

[Rod Carty]

Evolution does not deal with the WHOLE universe, and it doesn't deal with how life came about. It deals with how life diversifies. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that says God couldn't have started the process through supernatural means.

I agree biological evolution only deals with biology, that is, how the current biodiversity came about from the universal common ancestor. But that is moving the goalposts to claim this is the only evolution (and using this claim to make it seem like you have rebutted my statement is deflection). There is also cosmic evolution, the most popular version of that right now being the known by the term Big Bang. There is stellar evolution, where stars and planets came about from the original hydrogen that came from the BB. There is also chemical evolution, where life comes from non-life.

While I agree evolution itself doesn't have to say God couldn't have created, as I said already it is atheism which rules out all supernatural entities, and thus disallows on the basis of logic any supernatural causes. You have made a strawman of what I actually said.

 

[lasthero]

The interpretation is meteors impacted the earth. It would appear to me that you are implying more than you stated, namely that there is some problem for the YEC position that meteors have struck the earth. Could you explain what the problem is, please?

Do you understand what happens when a large meteor strikes the Earth?

 

[Rod Carty]

Only if you confine yourself to a narrow interpretation.

Are you saying the central message of the whole Bible, as I stated it in another post, is a narrow interpretation of the Bible?

 

[lasthero]

I agree biological evolution only deals with biology

And that's what we've been talking about, here.

 

[Rod Carty]

Do you understand what happens when a large meteor strikes the Earth?

Ah, so you are talking about an impact large enough to kill all the dinosaurs but not the mammals? (Uh, how does that happen, anyway?) What about an impact during the time that all land-based life on the planet that wasn't in the Ark was being killed by a global tectonic upheaval called the Flood? What do you think the consequences would be for the life that is dying?

By the way, is stellar evolution is true; if long ages is true, then the geologic evidence should show a great deal of meteor impacts in the lowest layers, preserved along with the fossils we find there, and the amount of impacts should lessen as we go up through the layers. Does the evidence fit this prediction?

 

[SteveB28]

Are you saying the central message of the whole Bible, as I stated it in another post, is a narrow interpretation of the Bible?

If you think that the "central message" of the Bible is a literal recount of a 6 day creation of all that the universe contains, then yes, I call that a narrow interpretation.

 

[Rod Carty]

And that's what we've been talking about, here.

You implied before there is only one kind of evolution.

I said:
"That is because evolution claims life and the whole universe came about through purely natural causes, while the Bible says God specifically and intentionally created."

And you replied:
"Evolution does not deal with the WHOLE universe, and it doesn't deal with how life came about. It deals with how life diversifies. There's nothing about the theory of evolution that says God couldn't have started the process through supernatural means."

It's gratifying that you now allow that the other kinds of evolution do exist, but it's a change from what you said before, in an attempt to rebut what I said.

 

[Rod Carty]

If you think that the "central message" of the Bible is a literal recount of a 6 day creation of all that the universe contains, then yes, I call that a narrow interpretation.

I've already explained how that is a logical conclusion of the central message of the Bible, that is, the central message is contradicted, made illogical, if the earth is old. If you have a way to reconcile the central message with long ages please share it. If you think the central message is something else, please share it.

 

[lasthero]

Ah, so you are talking about an impact large enough to kill all the dinosaurs but not the mammals? (Uh, how does that happen, anyway?)

That's not what anyone said happened. There weren't very many mammals around at that point, and they few that existed were quite small. Also, dinosaurs weren't the only thing that died out around that point - fish, insects, and even mammals died out, too. Dinosaurs took the hardest hit.

What about an impact during the time that all land-based life on the planet that wasn't in the Ark was being killed by a global tectonic upheaval called the Flood? What do you think the consequences would be for the life that is dying?

The Flood wouldn't make any difference. Not to mention, if such an impact happened during the flood, it's odd that it wouldn't be mentioned in the Bible.

By the way, is stellar evolution is true; if long ages is true, then the geologic evidence should show a great deal of meteor impacts in the lowest layers, preserved along with the fossils we find there, and the amount of impacts should lessen as we go up through the layers. Does the evidence fit this prediction?

Yes, actually.

And keep in mind, these are just the really, really big ones we've found. If the Earth is billions of years old, taking all these impacts isn't a big deal - there's more than enough time for life to keep on going, and they're spaced out. If the Earth is less than 10,000, they become something of a problem, especially when you consider that they're at varying levels of strata, show different levels of degrading, and are mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or any other text.

 

[SteveB28]

I've already explained how that is a logical conclusion of the central message of the Bible, that is, the central message is contradicted, made illogical, if the earth is old. If you have a way to reconcile the central message with long ages please share it. If you think the central message is something else, please share it.

You only receive that "central message" with a literal reading of the Bible stories. Most of your Christian brethren seem very comfortable with the concession that much of the writing is allegorical. Your views are representative of a rapidly shrinking minority.

 

[ecco]

I posted three links. you look it up, none were Bible based

Obviously I missed your posted links. There were none in your post #73. What post were they in?

 

[Rod Carty]

That's not what anyone said happened. There weren't very many mammals around at that point, and they few that existed were quite small. Also, dinosaurs weren't the only thing that died out around that point - fish, insects, and even mammals died out, too. Dinosaurs took the hardest hit.

My point was that supposedly all the dinosaurs died as a result of the Chixculub impact. If it killed the largest animals it seems odd the smaller ones survived.

The Flood wouldn't make any difference. Not to mention, if such an impact happened during the flood, it's odd that it wouldn't be mentioned in the Bible.

It isn't mentioned in the Bible what Noah had for breakfast either, so by that argument we must conclude Noah never had breakfast or he didn't exist or something.

Yes, actually.

And keep in mind, these are just the really, really big ones we've found. If the Earth is billions of years old, taking all these impacts isn't a big deal - there's more than enough time for life to keep on going, and they're spaced out. If the Earth is less than 10,000, they become something of a problem, especially when you consider that they're at varying levels of strata, show different levels of degrading, and are mentioned nowhere in the Bible, or any other text.

That's a lovely graphic. Do you have a larger version I can actually study, or perhaps a link to details on all those impacts, and what layers they are in?

 

[Rod Carty]

You only receive that "central message" with a literal reading of the Bible stories. Most of your Christian brethren seem very comfortable with the concession that much of the writing is allegorical. Your views are representative of a rapidly shrinking minority.

So, Jesus dying for our sins is allegorical? I'll go with the clear intent of the Bible as it's written as far as what is intended to be read as literal history and what is not.

 

[bhsmte]

It's all in ,"The case for a Creator " by Lee Strobel There is no evidence for macro - evolution . None . However ,I believe God made creation to go in cycles of time until He decides on the last one .

Strobel's book was not based on science. His claims were also destroyed, with objective analysis.

 

[bhsmte]

http://www.icr.org/geological-strata

Have any evidence from legit geologists and not a creationist site?

In fact, it was Christian geologists, that first showed there was no geological evidence for a global flood.

 

[Meowzltov]

Lets not confuse questioning certain aspects of 'evolution ' with Young Earth Creationism.

In order for evolution to work, it needs TIME, aka an old earth.

 

[bhsmte]

Your first statement is totally unprovable as you do not know the views of 2.4 billion christians on the earth. My guess is that a large percentage of them in non westernised countries have never heard of evolution. Their faith in God is simple and that is probably why they experience the miracles and we don't.

In fact evolution starts with a humongous faith in something that is totally ridiculous that supersedes any that a christian might have. Its promoters then try and kid us that it is fact and then they get really upset when we are surprised and we say "you have got to be kidding."

Numerous studies have show, the majority of Christians accept evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree biological evolution only deals with biology, that is, how the current biodiversity came about from the universal common ancestor. But that is moving the goalposts to claim this is the only evolution (and using this claim to make it seem like you have rebutted my statement is deflection). There is also cosmic evolution, the most popular version of that right now being the known by the term Big Bang. There is stellar evolution, where stars and planets came about from the original hydrogen that came from the BB. There is also chemical evolution, where life comes from non-life.

While I agree evolution itself doesn't have to say God couldn't have created, as I said already it is atheism which rules out all supernatural entities, and thus disallows on the basis of logic any supernatural causes. You have made a strawman of what I actually said.

Atheism doesn't really rule out a God. Atheism is a position, there is no credible evidence, to believe a God exists.