Evolution or descent with modification?

[Astrophile]

So what did they get wrong? They sound as 'scientific' as any.

First, on the home page the WebMaster (Michael Brown) writes, 'There are many evidences for ... the occurance (sic) of the global flood as described in Genesis'. This is not true; there is no evidence for a world-wide flood at any time during the Earth's history, and the geological and fossil records supply compelling evidence for the Earth's being extremely old.

Most of the seven 'Topics of interest' listed on the home page are matters of biology, which I am not competent to discuss. (I suspect that Mr. Brown is not competent to discuss them either.) However, on the matter of the 'Cambrian Explosion of Life and Comlexity (sic)', I would refer you to Puck Mendelssohn's one-star review on Amazon.com of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. Mendelssohn strongly recommends The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine. This book gives a very different and much more detailed view of the 'Cambrian explosion' than either Darwin's Doubt or www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm .

On the matter of carbon-14 dating and amino acid dating, Mr. Brown says nothing about other forms of radiometric dating (e.g. U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar and Ar40-Ar39 dating), nor does he say anything about the geological evidence for the great age of the Earth. Radiometric dating provides compelling evidence that the Cambrian period began 541.0±1.0 million years ago, and that the Earth is 4540±20 million years old. In addition, the sheer thickness of the sedimentary systems (for example, a maximum of 15 km for the Cretaceous and 13 km for the Jurassic) makes it impossible for these systems to have been deposited in less than millions of years, let alone in a single flood lasting for less than one year. There are many books and websites that deal with radiometric dating, geology and stratigraphy in relation to geochronology, and I advise you to read some of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, on the home page the WebMaster (Michael Brown) writes, 'There are many evidences for ... the occurance (sic) of the global flood as described in Genesis'. This is not true; there is no evidence for a world-wide flood at any time during the Earth's history, and the geological and fossil records supply compelling evidence for the Earth's being extremely old.

Most of the seven 'Topics of interest' listed on the home page are matters of biology, which I am not competent to discuss. (I suspect that Mr. Brown is not competent to discuss them either.) However, on the matter of the 'Cambrian Explosion of Life and Comlexity (sic)', I would refer you to Puck Mendelssohn's one-star review on Amazon.com of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. Mendelssohn strongly recommends The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine. This book gives a very different and much more detailed view of the 'Cambrian explosion' than either Darwin's Doubt or www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm .

On the matter of carbon-14 dating and amino acid dating, Mr. Brown says nothing about other forms of radiometric dating (e.g. U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar and Ar40-Ar39 dating), nor does he say anything about the geological evidence for the great age of the Earth. Radiometric dating provides compelling evidence that the Cambrian period began 541.0±1.0 million years ago, and that the Earth is 4540±20 million years old. In addition, the sheer thickness of the sedimentary systems (for example, a maximum of 15 km for the Cretaceous and 13 km for the Jurassic) makes it impossible for these systems to have been deposited in less than millions of years, let alone in a single flood lasting for less than one year. There are many books and websites that deal with radiometric dating, geology and stratigraphy in relation to geochronology, and I advise you to read some of them.

I saw that article handwaved away the claim that contamination was the cause of much of the C14 in fossils. But one only need to realize that even a trace of C14, which is all that they have, will give a false young date. Plus if they were all from the Flood, as creationists like to claim, they should have a much younger date and they should all be the same date. Instead what is observed is a variance in date that has nothing do with their location in the fossil record. Guess what we would see if the C14 was due to contamination and not an actual event? That's right, we would see wide variation in age without regard to where the fossil was found in the fossil record.

 

[Aman777]

It doesn't matter what I think. Your idea is false on the evidence. If you want to take on faith that God miracled all the Homo sapiens to make them civilization level intelligent, you are welcome to, but it isn't supported by the genetic evidence.

The ONLY person made in the image and likeness of Jesus/Lord God was Adam. Genesis 2:7 He was NOT made of flesh until AFTER he sinned. He was also made with an intelligence ability like God's and that is to know both good and evil so that you can judge between the two. NO other creature has this superior intelligence except God and Humans, who are the descendants of Adam.

Your common assertion that you have scientific backing is not true.

Thanks for your unsupported view. It's also called an opinion.

But that isn't true.

Intricate art work, tool design and even cites have cropped up all over the world from peoples without ancestors in middle east less then 20,000 years ago.

NO Human cities were built until Noah arrived. There were NO Human cities built by the descendants of Adam until Babel was built some 10k years ago in NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA. Babylon is NOT Babel but was named from it.

Pacific Islanders and the native people of South America had long been separated from the ancient people of the fertile crescent, but farmed and built sophisticated social and physical structures.

I have no reason to think any of that is even true.

Personally I don't see any justification for not seeing modern human intelligence as a natural progression from the above average intelligence of apes in general, only in our case with some extraordinary secondary consequences of only slightly higher intelligence.

The other issue is that your interpretation is not supported by many, if any, of your fellow Christians.

Apes remain Apes and do NOT evolve Human intelligence which is like God's, no matter how many millions of years you give them. It's probably because you believe what they brainwashed you as a child to believe. If not, then you have chosen your own path. Good luck. What you accept is that Nature has magically changed the intelligence of prehistoric man. With NO evidence of the process you accept this falsehood. Tell us of this magical process which is DIFFERENT from sex, since that's the only way to affect the intelligence of Humans on the inside. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

You assume that it is the intelligence of God and then demand an explanation which satisfies your assumption.

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man (Heb-Adam) is become as One of Us, to know good and evil:

With your knowledge, please explain "Us" Hint: God the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Remember that I have God's Word for it so please identify your source. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

You don't seem to understand. I don't need to provide any evidence to refute you since you provided nothing but empty claims yourself. That is why my little friend refutes you time and time again.

Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia

What a crew! An atheist, an imaginary character and a dead man's God hating view. Now I know what you base your future on.

Pro 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a crew! An atheist, an imaginary character and a dead man's God hating view. Now I know what you base your future on.

Pro 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

And they all are grinding your arguments into dust.

Until you come up with some evidence my little friend can refute all of your claims:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First, on the home page the WebMaster (Michael Brown) writes, 'There are many evidences for ... the occurance (sic) of the global flood as described in Genesis'. This is not true; there is no evidence for a world-wide flood at any time during the Earth's history, and the geological and fossil records supply compelling evidence for the Earth's being extremely old.

Most of the seven 'Topics of interest' listed on the home page are matters of biology, which I am not competent to discuss. (I suspect that Mr. Brown is not competent to discuss them either.) However, on the matter of the 'Cambrian Explosion of Life and Comlexity (sic)', I would refer you to Puck Mendelssohn's one-star review on Amazon.com of Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. Mendelssohn strongly recommends The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine. This book gives a very different and much more detailed view of the 'Cambrian explosion' than either Darwin's Doubt or www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm .

On the matter of carbon-14 dating and amino acid dating, Mr. Brown says nothing about other forms of radiometric dating (e.g. U-Pb, Rb-Sr, K-Ar and Ar40-Ar39 dating), nor does he say anything about the geological evidence for the great age of the Earth. Radiometric dating provides compelling evidence that the Cambrian period began 541.0±1.0 million years ago, and that the Earth is 4540±20 million years old. In addition, the sheer thickness of the sedimentary systems (for example, a maximum of 15 km for the Cretaceous and 13 km for the Jurassic) makes it impossible for these systems to have been deposited in less than millions of years, let alone in a single flood lasting for less than one year. There are many books and websites that deal with radiometric dating, geology and stratigraphy in relation to geochronology, and I advise you to read some of them.

I have no problem with the age of the earth as proposed by science. I'm an OEC.

 

[Astrophile]

I have no problem with the age of the earth as proposed by science. I'm an OEC.

Thank-you for your informative answer. Can you please answer two questions?

First, do you think that there is evidence for a global flood, as proposed by www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm ? Second, how do you interpret the fossil record and particularly the changes in living things from the Cambrian period to the present? I look forward to receiving your reply.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thank-you for your informative answer. Can you please answer two questions?

First, do you think that there is evidence for a global flood, as proposed by www.mhrc.net/evidence.htm ? Second, how do you interpret the fossil record and particularly the changes in living things from the Cambrian period to the present? I look forward to receiving your reply.

I'm not knowledgable enough in those ideas to comment on them, however I do subscribe to the ruin/restoration model.

 

[Ophiolite]

@OWG You said you were keen to get things sorted out, or words to that effect. I took you seriously. I've taken the time and exhibited the courtesy to seek to do this. You have chosen to completely ignore my last post to you. Did you just miss it? Are you avoiding a reply because you feel threatened? Or?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Try me and tell us whether you want to be refuted Scripturally, scientifically, historically or genetically. Theories don't count since they are simply assumptions of people who have rejected God's Truth. ie. the false ToE.

Let me ask my question again, and this time please answer with a simple "yes" or "no":

If I can provide an example of you having been shown to be wrong scripturally, scientifically, historically or genetically will you stop claiming that it's never been done?

 

[Kylie]

Those same terms would be found there as well.

Except on a science website in an article written by a scientist, those terms would be used correctly.

 

[Kylie]

But those 'theoretical' terms are used throughout all such evolution articles no matter who writes them. That was my point.

So what? Just because something uses scientific terms doesn't mean that it's a valid source.

Quantum quarks entangle planck length. Does that make me an expert on quantum mechanics? Of course not. Yet I could use the terms just fine.

 

[Kylie]

I am an expert in God's Truth.

How many people do you think there are in the world who also claim to be experts in God's truth and who also have very different ideas about it than yours?

 

[Kylie]

Does to me. God bless you

What does the Bible say about being self-centered?

 

[Kylie]

Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man (Heb-Adam) is become as One of Us, to know good and evil:

With your knowledge, please explain "Us" Hint: God the Trinity is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Remember that I have God's Word for it so please identify your source. Amen?

You haven't supported your position. All you've done is repeat the claim. If you are using the Bible as the claim, you can't also use the Bible as support for the claim.

Prove to me that human intelligence could only have come from God. Giving me a passage from an old book doesn't count.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except on a science website in an article written by a scientist, those terms would be used correctly.

Can you point out where those terms are used incorrectly?

 

[TBDude65]

I am an expert in God's Truth. Evolution is nothing more than descent with modification within a population over time. In the past 200 years some people who have rejected God's Truth in Genesis, have "added to" that definition and have falsely taught our children that they evolved from the common ancestor of apes.

Evolution is a THEORY based on the facts shown on this Earth. God's Truth tells us that He made at least 3 worlds but evolutionists have rejected His Truth in favor of their incomplete made up false assumption which they call the ToE. It is NOT Science but simply the consensus of people who have been brainwashed, from the 1st grade to believe that this false theory is a scientific fact. It is NOT and never will be...

How do you know you're an expert in "god's truth?"

 

[Ophiolite]

Can you point out where those terms are used incorrectly?

Still waiting for your response.

 

[Kylie]

Can you point out where those terms are used incorrectly?

When I said, "Quantum quarks entangle planck length," can you point out if I used those terms incorrectly, and in what way the useage was incorrect?