Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[Clare73]

I certainly meant my initial response, and I don't so much regret it as think it could bar acceptance by instigating a reaction instead of encouraging consideration, if that makes sense. The "yikes" alerted me to the possibility. Then I thought, "Maybe there was a better way to put that."

As far as Jesus goes, he was not always gentle, lol. Clearly, I fall short of his standard. But, he had no qualms about calling a group of people a "brood of vipers."

Got run over there, huh?

Where do you think matter/energy came from?

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so let's say we're hanging out in Shenandoah national park. If you haven't been there, I highly recommend it. And we are searching to see if amphibians predate or post date fish or if amphibians predate or post date reptiles. And keep in mind that based on our current understanding of the succession, if at any point we find an amphibian in Cambrian or ordovician strata, then it would be game over for evolution. As a matter of fact, if we found any bird or mammal, or even any reptile in ordovician or Cambrian or silurian or Devonian strata, it would be a game over for evolution. Because birds evolved from reptiles, so it ought to be impossible for a bird to exist before reptiles exist. Especially by a difference some 200 million years of strata, which is a very long time.

So let's get some photos goes.

The app I'm using is called rockD, it's a free app for anyone who wants to download it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so let's say we're hanging out in Shenandoah national park. If you haven't been there, I highly recommend it. And we are searching to see if amphibians predate or post date fish or if amphibians predate or post date reptiles. And keep in mind that based on our current understanding of the succession, if at any point we find an amphibian in Cambrian or ordovician strata, then it would be game over for evolution. As a matter of fact, if we found any bird or mammal, or even any reptile in ordovician or Cambrian or silurian or Devonian strata, it would be a game over for evolution. Because birds evolved from reptiles, so it ought to be impossible for a bird to exist before reptiles exist. Especially by a difference some 200 million years of strata, which is a very long time.

So let's get some photos goes.

View attachment 296861

View attachment 296862

The app I'm using is called rockD, it's a free app for anyone who wants to download it.

So let's say we start to the west (see pictures above) and we are in mississippian strata.

This strata, for those who have looked at it, has reptiles in it. Trackways, it has seeded plants. Depending on the section sometimes it has tropical forest-like plants. Carboniferous appalachia is known for its tropical conditions and animals that reflect that, insects, reptiles etc. And we find plenty of fish in these rocks as well. Common stuff. But we want to go further back in time. So we want to go eastward toward stratigraphically deeper rocks.

And I do have pieces of the noted pocono formation, among other mississippian formations. I have also seen fish and tetrapod fossils in these rocks as well. Some appalachian carboniferous rocks are known for fern fossils as well, which are also somewhat common. And again, there aren't any flowering plants here. So even when observing plants, we continue to affirm a succession of fossils.


And depending on where in the mississippian you look, you get cyclothems, so patters of sandstone shale and limestone bands as well, so you may also find some shellfish depending on the section you're in.

Rocks are tilted on angles, so to go deeper in time, we just get in our car and we drive down the road. Which is where our target formations are. So we've seen shallower rocks with reptiles and amphibians, but we want to go deeper than these mississippian rocks. We want to go deeper to Devonian, silurian, ordovician, Cambrian and beyond. So I'll continue to the next with more screen shots.

 

[public hermit]

Where do you think matter/energy came from?

I'm not sure how that is relevant to the topic of evolution. Do I believe God is the Creator? Yes. Creator of matter, energy, life (including all forms of life)? Yes.

 

[Religiot]

Again. My apologies. I didn't feel like I was being condescending. How would you like for me to speak to you so that you don't feel like I'm being condescending, Religiot?

Like I said before, condescension is not wrong, doing it pridefully is... so no worries.

You're right. Understanding the Bible is a serious challenge, for many. This is one reason I study Hermeneutics and Exegesis. We wouldn't want to flippantly try to contrive a meaning from Scripture that the writers themselves wouldn't have intended to express.

The writers themselves are nothing more than vessels containing the same water: it is the water that must be considered, not the writers, and this the writers would tell you themselves. --it is carnal, and thus contrary to the truth, to attempt to adjudge the intent of the writers apart from the writing as a whole. The scriptures, not the writers, are the word of God: God expressed Himself through these vessels, not the vessels through God; wherefore we must look to the harmony found in scripture, as a whole, in order to understand the meaning in sound doctrine.

That's true. Satan attempts to do that. Fortunately, you and I both know that Satan doesn't know everything, so he leaves himself in a weak position.

Strictly, Satan does not know everything, but as far as compared to us he does. And, no, I don't agree that he is in a weak position, but on the contrary, I believe he is presently the ruler of this world--by the consent of God, of course, yet no less the ruler in-fact.

Yes, it is absurd. But people say "Jesus is the Truth" all the time and can't really explain what that means.

Can you explain how love is a person? --not the word love, for that would be an absurdity--I'm strictly referring to the concept of love, that it is a person, a Spirit, like the truth, that it too is the same Spirit, visible, inexplicably, in your mind's eye, and sensible, in your soul's heart...

--God's nature cannot be fully known now, but will be known then; therefore, do not deprecate what has never been expressed to you, nor conclude it absurdity because it has never been articulated to you: it cannot be uttered.

The truth is a person, Christ; Christ is God's word, also--talk about things difficult to articulate: how can Christ, the word of God, be also His Son? and how could God also be the word? --I don't know, but I know that I believe it. (To me, anyone imagining that they can explain the ontology of God is simply someone who really hasn't attempted to think it through.)

To summarize: The truth is a person, the Creator of the universe: nothing can exist without Him, not Satan, not any thing, for all of it is by Him and for Him, and by Him all things consist. Wherefore, we strive for the truth, intimately, for to walk in the truth is to be one with Christ.

--truth, therefore, by extension, is a state of being, as love.

What is fundamental knowledge? Do you mean to refer to something like the fact that we know the Moon isn't a flat disc?

Fundamental knowledge is basic knowledge, i.e., base knowledge, foundational knowledge; knowledge of first things: the foundation to epistemology is like the foundation to a house, without the concrete or stone, the house cannot be made to stand for long against any assault--true fundamental knowledge grounds conceptions in reality.

What do you accept as evidence? See, this isn't meant to be a trick question, but I go through a similar conceptual excercise all of the time with the Skeptics here, and they're always trying to ask for evidence but without defining what should count as evidence, what is "sufficient evidence" or how much human interpetation plays into discerning the nature of data that we think of as facts.

But, evidence for Evolution? For that we'd have to probably first know our tools for discerning evidence and what qualifies as evidence and how it does so. If we're not going to accept the Scientific Method(s) to study the nature and age of the Earth, then what else is there?

Evidence to me is no more than what is plain to ascertain: for example, fire is hot, and demonstrably so, by simple experimentations that will yield a flame, a person know, that fire is indeed hot.

Remember, the word science solely means knowledge, thus any scientific methodology for the ascertainment of facts would be more clearly referred to as a knowledgeable methodology.

 

[Religiot]

I understood what you meant. How do you know "good" is not evolution?

The same way I know the truth about anything, by God's word, viz:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." --Genesis 1:31

Not only does the above sentence answer you directly, it contradicts the heresy of evolution, immediately, for not only is the entire sentence in the past tense, but it is also timestamped.

 

[Job 33:6]

So let's say we start to the west (see pictures above) and we are in mississippian strata.

This strata, for those who have looked at it, has reptiles in it. Trackways, it has seeded plants. Depending on the section sometimes it has tropical forest-like plants. Carboniferous appalachia is known for its tropical conditions and animals that reflect that, insects, reptiles etc. And we find plenty of fish in these rocks as well. Common stuff. But we want to go further back in time. So we want to go eastward toward stratigraphically deeper rocks.

And depending on where in the mississippian you look, you get cyclothems, so patters of sandstone shale and limestone bands as well, so you may also find some shellfish depending on the section you're in.



Rocks are tilted on angles, so to go deeper in time, we just get in our car and we drive down the road. Which is where our target formations are. So we've seen shallower rocks with reptiles and amphibians, but we want to go deeper than these mississippian rocks. We want to go deeper to Devonian, silurian, ordovician, Cambrian and beyond. So I'll continue to the next with more screen shots.

Are you following along so far @Religiot or would you like me to clarify more?

 

[Thomas White]

The same way I know the truth about anything, by God's word, viz:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." --Genesis 1:31

Not only does the above sentence answer you directly, it contradicts the heresy of evolution, immediately, for not only is the entire sentence in the past tense, but it is also timestamped.

Again, I ask, how do you what "good" looks like? How do you know it wasn't evolution? Nothing about the passage you just quoted contradicts evolution. If it does, point out where.

 

[GenemZ]

Given the things you've said and your understanding of evolution your the one that doesn't. The only two choices are accept evolution is compatible with the bible or reject the bible. Anyone honest that actually understands evolution will know that's the only choices. You've shown you know nothing about evolution.

I understand evolution. Its the application that evolutionists use that I find weird and contradictory. Both sides (young earthers vs theory of evolutionists) are intellectually dishonest in this debate. Its this inability to be intellectually honest that perpetuates this never ending family feud ...

 

[GenemZ]

So be it then. Apparently you don't have any valid answers to some very valid questions. At least Jesus had answers to every question and challenge and was able to validate His claims in more ways than one.

Young earth creationists have a huge problem with their position.

Here is the problem. Noah's Ark was only one vessel. Yet?

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.

Do you realize how HUGE the Ark would have had to been if all the prehistoric creatures were alive in Noah's day. Its absurd to consider logically. Noah would have been commanded to build a huge fleet, not one Ark!

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an utter ruin and destruction of the planet.

I do not choose to look stupid to the evolutionist according to what the Bible says. I am willing to look stupid for what the Bible does tell us. What they choose to deny and flee from by diversion and condescension. ... Because, it explains where all the prehistoric creatures came from. Young earthers and TOE's would rather street fight each other like a theological gang war... Its primal nature of man that the Lord wants overcome by means of the Spirit filling, and Truth.

So be it....

 

[Religiot]

Again, I ask, how do you what "good" looks like? How do you know it wasn't evolution? Nothing about the passage you just quoted contradicts evolution. If it does, point out where.

You reject what is obvious--I cannot cause you to see.

I'm sorry, I can no longer continue the dialog with you: it is unprofitable.

Goodbye.

 

[Religiot]

Are you following along so far @Religiot or would you like me to clarify more?

Sorry, man, just got busy: I haven't had the time to review your last response to my replies. I may get to it this evening.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[d taylor]

Young earth creationists have a huge problem with their position.

Here is the problem. Noah's Ark was only one vessel. Yet?

Of all species that have existed on Earth, 99.9 percent are now extinct.

Do you realize how HUGE the Ark would have had to been if all the prehistoric creatures were alive in Noah's day. Its absurd to consider logically. Noah would have been commanded to build a huge fleet, not one Ark!

Genesis 1:2 speaks of an utter ruin and destruction of the planet.

I do not choose to look stupid to the evolutionist according to what the Bible says. I am willing to look stupid for what the Bible does tell us. What they choose to deny and flee from by diversion and condescension. ... Because, it explains where all the prehistoric creatures came from. Young earthers and TOE's would rather street fight each other like a theological gang war... Its primal nature of man that the Lord wants overcome by means of the Spirit filling, and Truth.

So be it....

Genesis 1:2 states nothing about the ruin of a planet. It states about the ruin of the earth created in Genesis 1:1.

 

[loveofourlord]

The new rationality is not spiritual but rather fleshly. This is similarly to what happen to the churches in the early part of the 3rd and 4th century. To avoid persecution they embraced being a church of state. They became part of the elite. Evolutionism is required in the Academic-Political Complex.

They are calling the Scriptures totally devoid of scientific truth and by inference all truths. The most extreme of these are called atheist as the believe the universe was created by the multiverse (by something immeasurable but it exists). However, since they like the perks of Christianity, they self-identify as Christian. The ones that say the universe was created by God, but does not take interest what He has created, are either Deists, Platonics (Demiurge), or Evolutionist. Deists are calling God something like the Hindu Brahma (without Shiva and Vishnu). The Platonics are calling God something like a tag team of bad Brahma and Vishnu. The Evolutionists are calling it as Brahma (with or without Shiva) and Vishnu with reincarnation without dharma. I don't they are calling God a liar directly.

OR and just hear me out evolution is reality and it's creationists fighting against god and truth. I accept evolution because it's true.

 

[loveofourlord]

I understand evolution. Its the application that evolutionists use that I find weird and contradictory. Both sides (young earthers vs theory of evolutionists) are intellectually dishonest in this debate. Its this inability to be intellectually honest that perpetuates this never ending family feud ...

you keep saying that and then being dishonest about what evolution claims so your not one to talk. Also you said that ancient man was capable of understanding evolution, we can't even get creationists NOW to understand it, and you think people less knowledgable would understand it.

 

[GenemZ]

Genesis 1:2 states nothing about the ruin of a planet. It states about the ruin of the earth created in Genesis 1:1.

Get back to the 99.9% please.

You filtered out a gnat and left in a camel...

 

[GenemZ]

you keep saying that and then being dishonest about what evolution claims so your not one to talk. Also you said that ancient man was capable of understanding evolution, we can't even get creationists NOW to understand it, and you think people less knowledgable would understand it.

Its not that they can not understand it. Its what its been DISTORTED into what they resist.

Ancient man could have shown how evolution works. Look at how the Lord transformed the serpent from having legs into a snake. It could have been easily illustrated to the primitive man if we transformed into a man from a monkey.

 

[Chi.C]

OR and just hear me out evolution is reality and it's creationists fighting against god and truth. I accept evolution because it's true.

Evolution is classified as a theory but there is scant proof. The current definition of evolution must include the genome not a bag of alleles. Darwinism - bag of alleles , Neo-Darwinism - genome.

The objection to random mutations on the genome producing radical restructuring of the body and organ systems is that there is insufficient time for body forms to transition. Check out the intelligent design. Bones tell us nothing as this too can be reasoned as design. Stating that God is a bad engineer by an atheist is basically a strawman argument as I doubt he/she has engineering experience. Stating that God is a bad engineer by a Christian is basically blasphemous as I understand his/her ignorance as an engineer but not his/her arguments as a Christian.

Abiogenesis was rejected by scientists centuries ago (Louis Pasteur). It has since been reborn as counter to arguments of origin of life. Generation of amino acids by lightning requires that these must be done in the absence of oxygen. The oxygenation came too early for this to have happened. RNA world is stuck with the problem whether RNA came first or proteins came first. Look up "reasons to believe". To have proteins to come about naturally via random chemical reactions are insanely unlikely. Lookup "signatures in the cell". Saying that life has been produced in the lab is proof that God is unnecessary. Look up "James Tour" and listen to the process of producing carbon filaments. It is complicated.

There has been no true evolutionary speciation documented. All speciations events all use inference that the continued divergence of 2 populations would result in speciation - the question is the answer. Forced sexual reproduction would bring forth viable offspring.

Polyploidy - hybridization in plants is anti-evolution. 2 species creating a new one - hybridization. 1 species producing 2 - evolution.

Tree of life - Richard Dawkins new atheist who mocks Christianity as delusion believes evidence indicates a tree of life. Craig Venter atheist in a public forum in front of Richard Dawkins stated "more like a bush". If you choose to use childish analogy as proof of evolution and you cannot prove it all I can say "what is your agenda?"

I have given you the outline why I object to evolution as a theory. It is not because I am Christian. I will state clearly why I object to evolution in Christianity as a Christian, it is blasphemous and unforgivably so. When it is given voice as a reason to change and alter the Scriptures, it is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Religiot]

To understand what you're looking at, you have to identify the type of rock that you're looking at. So you can look at varying grain sizes to determine if you're looking at a sandstone or a siltstone, or you can look at different mineral structures to determine what minerals are in certain rocks to determine what the overall rock is. Different rocks fracture in different ways. So for example, let's say I go outside and I pickup a rock and it's made of sand (just like at a beach) I can conclude that it's sandstone because that is what it is made of. Igneous rocks are also simple. Granites have quarts and feldspar, much like a kitchen counter. Metamorphic rocks are typically folded or have flattened minerals etc.

I use the above qualities to distinguish between rock types, among others.

And this is how I know what I'm looking at. Just like when you look at a dog or a cat, you know the difference just based on how they look. Rocks are the same way.

Geologic maps are publicly available. I actually use a phone app. In which geologic maps have been digitized.

Here are a couple examples:
View attachment 296857


View attachment 296858

The different colors represent different formations. If you click on the formation, it gives information and references on formations.

It's easy to used digitized maps because they give you real time gps capabilities that help identify your location. Just like using a regular gps unit, as long as you have reception, the app can tell you where you are.

So, let's say we have the theory of evolution which says that amphibians evolved from fish in the devonian.

And this is what genome sequences suggest, it's what, comparative anatomy, etc.

So as rock people, let's say we want to know if amphibian fossils post-date fish fossils. And if amphibian fossils are found before fish fossils, then the theory of evolution is in trouble.

So let's find some Devonian formations...I'll give the play by play with screenshots.

I reviewed your post, and I have not learned anything that constitutes evidence for evolution, but the same claims you've made in previous posts.

Please try to answer the following, scientifically:

How do you determine the age of the rocks?

 

[GenemZ]

Evolution is classified as a theory but there is scant proof.

Until Young Earth creationists can answer the right questions honestly about prehistoric fossils? You leave intelligent people who understand enough scientific data with no choice but to accept the theory of Evolution.

Its your fault. For, many times the restored earth doctrine (GAP) has been blindly rejected by YEC's. Its your own fault that evolutionists have gained such confidence. Trouble is, YEC's are blinded by their heartfelt loyalty to tradition, rather than finding out what the Bible in the original languages is shouting out to believers. But their religious training that has programmed them keeps getting in the way.

I would love to see some young earth creationists evolve into a clearer understanding of the Scriptures. Until they do? They are begging for evolutionists to dominate over them. They do, except not in their own minds.

Yes... evolutionists swallow lies. And, so do young earth creationists. Its the closed minds of young earth creationists that gives the evolutionist the freedom to dominate the narrative in the public arena. If the GAP understanding were presented with clarity? It would leave the evolutionist without the sense of having no choice but to reject creationism.

Its a vanity battle. One that Satan wants to get the upper hand in controlling the narrative in the public arena As long as the Word of God is not yet properly understood? Satan will have dominion. And, will have great power with the evolutionist in seeing flaws in logic to be mocking deservingly.

A good witness does not mean it will win over the other side. It will mean it will leave them to be without excuse. Young Earth Creationism leaves them comfortably smug. For, its a bad but well intentioned, sincere witness for the truth.

Good intentions and sincerity does not transform error into truth.

.....