Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

-57 · Jul 9, 2020

The Barbarian said:
I was actually there. It was surprisingly soft...

View attachment 280600

Notice, on the right bank of the gully, the soft ash slumping into the (maybe 12-meter high) gulley. That's about the limit of vertical walls back when I took the shot. 120 film on a Voigtlander Perkeo, to give you some hint of when it was taken.

Never been there, um? You see, the "strata" are quite variable in hardness; the Cardenas Basalt is volcanic rock, about 6.0 on the Mohs scale which would be considered "hard." There is other, softer rock, but the river cut down through the basalt, just as it cut through other strata. And there is no way a sudden rush of water could cut entrenched meanders in basalt.

As Lyell pointed out, and I've shown you.

Which is quite normal. The decaying plant debris around the tree trunks form coal. You wouldn't see that in a huge flood. You have to have relatively still water to do that around the trees. That's no surprise, either.

Geologists have realized how coal forms for a long time. We have examples of all stages in the process still happening. Would you like to learn about that?

I'm not concerned about the current hardness....I'm more concerned about the hardness when th Grand Canyon formed after the flood and the amount of sapping.

The meanders were formed prior to the larger release of water and only provided a pathway for the rushing waters to follow. You still haven't presented any objections for a rapid formation of the Grand Canyon. SCIENCE cleary demonstrates it's possible and with the GC likely.

As to the polystratefossils in coal....the flood would have uprooted miles upon miles of forrest and vegetation and buried them in a similiar manner as the trees in Spirit Lake. There is much you can learn from this area if you would only believe the bible and what it has to say rather than mans misinterpretion of what really happened.

Job 33:6 · Jul 9, 2020

-57 said:
Your representation of what actually took place..is somewhat dishonest. The ash wasn't as loose as you think it was...but then again the strata at the GC wasn't as hard as you would think it was.

The bottom line...strata can form quickly. They find polystrate fossils in coal. According to the old earths coal takes millions of years to accumulate and turn to coal. Science now tells us that's not quite right. Vegetation that became coal was deposited rapidly and the biblical flood of Noah provide an excellent means.

Just for the record...as a christian I would not expect to see an ad-hom like argument from you calling me dishonest....Got it?

Perhaps you should leave the geology to the geologists. Volcanic ash just isn't as densely consolidated as geology of elsewhere on earth.

Also, perpendicular propagation of faults and ground up brecciated unconformity surfaces are structures of prehistoric motion of dense stone. You simply can't have double turned structural unconformities forming rigid straight structural features in a soft sediment environment.

Your dishonesty with the subject and lack of understanding of geology is noted and im sorry if you're confused by these simple facts.

lifepsyop · Jul 10, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
"Even today's mainstream geologists will admit that Uniformitarianism is nonsense. " - lifespyops

"geologists do not deny uniformitarianism in its true sense, that is to say, of interpreting the past by means of the processes that are seen going on at the present day, so long as we remember that the periodic catastrophe is one of those processes. Those periodic catastrophes make more showing in the stratigraphical record than we have hitherto assumed."[43] -Derek Ager (paleontologist)

Okay, I'll concede that Ager has embraced the new and utterly worthless meaning of the term (which can mean literally anything happened as long as it is attributed to natural process) ... This really has no effect on my argument since I was specifically criticizing the foundational Lyellian worldview, from which your same source likewise concedes that modern geology was "brainwashed" into misinterpreting earth history. (and the facts support that claim) ..

You still have trouble admitting that part, of course, despite the facts.

And directly preceding Ager's quote at your link:

- Uniformitarianism was proposed in contrast to catastrophism, which states that the distant past "consisted of epochs of paroxysmal and catastrophic action interposed between periods of comparative tranquility"[41] Especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most geologists took this interpretation to mean that catastrophic events are not important in geologic time; -

Isn't it funny how modern geology was completely wrong about how they interpreted earth history, (negligible catastrophism) ... and yet still claims vindication, even using the exact same terminology?

There is a major red-flag there for anyone with eyes to see it. With modern naturalistic geology, we are clearly dealing with a philosophy... an ideology... and *not* an objective science that is following the data wherever it may lead....

It's like young-earth creationists being pleasantly surprised that, even after overhauling and revising their flood models over the centuries, they still arrive at the same conclusion that a global flood occurred in recent history. But we all know (and YEC's admit themselves) that this is ultimately because they are philosophically constrained by the metaphysics of the Genesis worldview. They will not think outside of that box. All of their hypotheses and models and theories always lead to the same conclusion: That a recent global flood happened. They always feel vindicated on that fundamental belief, regardless what the data may show. This is exactly like your naturalist camp.... Exactly.

Though I'm sure you'd rather crawl over broken glass than admit it.... it's exactly the same as evolutionists/naturalists who cannot consider the possibility of an earth that wasn't shaped over millions and billions of years by naturalistic processes. You just can't do it... Even if the data is screaming at you, pointing in the opposite direction, you could not possibly entertain the possibility that your worldview is incorrect. Even when you are catastrophically wrong (pun intended) in your fundamental interpretations of earth history... well, we can see right here the result. You simply revise your terminology to mean whatever you want it to mean and march on with your ideology as if nothing had happened.

It could not be more clear, and yet you can't see it. Your whole lives you've been taught that yours is the correct thinking, and cannot possibly entertain the idea of being wrong, even when confronted with the facts of your ideology's failure. In your eyes, even your failures are just more proof of how right you are. It's a stunning thing to behold.

lifepsyop · Jul 10, 2020

The Barbarian said:
There's no "philosophy" other than epistemological evidence. So far, all the changes in the Earth's surface have been shown to result from natural processes which are the same today as they were from the beginning of the Earth.

Ah yes... the evidence is always on our side isn't it?

Reading your comments is like watching a political scientist in the Soviet Union arrive at the conclusion that the communist party is still correct. Even when confronted with failure of the ideology, it is more proof that you are correct.

The Barbarian said:
Your new beliefs are a blanket philosophical assertion that "God did it." And that's really all there is to it. On the other hand, the causes of past geological processes can be investigated and determined by scientific means. Your beliefs are merely "Godmustadunnit."

Mmmhmm... as if it isn't glaringly obvious by now that "Nature did it" is the exact same thing?

Of course geological processes can be investigated, but your ideology can't be. No matter what you find, it will always be confirmation that "Nature did it"... either one way or another, or by some means you have yet to discover. You are philosophically cut-off from the possibility of following data to a different conclusion. You and your cohorts make this more clear with every post.

The Barbarian said:
They might someday find that things fall down because they are pulled by gravity fairies.

Clip the fairy's wings and call it "natural process" ... You aren't a single step ahead in explaining anything.

Francis Bacon portrayed your ideology as the search for the "secret motions behind all things" ... It is a ceaseless pursuit of that grand Fairy-of-Nature, the Daughter of Time itself, who is ultimately pulling the strings at the foundation of all reality.

Take some time in studying the origins of your belief system.... who knows, you may actually discover the ability to question it, God willing.

The Barbarian said:
But it's hard to see how that or your imaginary global flood could be possible. Since it would require processes not in evidence today, it would be quite a blow to uniformitarianism.

No it wouldn't. It would just be evidence of what "nature" did. Remember that in Lyell's day, it was "hard to see" how catastrophism played any major role in earth history.

The trouble is that you still believe that your worldview is constrained by data and evidence. It isn't.

I mean, obviously you guys are never ever going to entertain that possibility because it would be a disaster from a Public-Relations point of view... but logically speaking, your ideology would be perfectly capable of absorbing a global flood model, as long as the great Nature Fairy is given the credit for it.

The Barbarian · Jul 10, 2020

lifepsyop said:
Ah yes... the evidence is always on our side isn't it?

Reality does count. This is why you're falling into vague declarations, instead of citing real evidence.

Reading your comments is like watching a political scientist in the Soviet Union arrive at the conclusion that the communist party is still correct. Even when confronted with failure of the ideology, it is more proof that you are correct.

Yeah, like that. Do you not realize what that kind of thing looks like to other people?

Your new beliefs are a blanket philosophical assertion that "God did it." And that's really all there is to it. On the other hand, the causes of past geological processes can be investigated and determined by scientific means. Your beliefs are merely "Godmustadunnit."

Mmmhmm... as if it isn't glaringly obvious by now that "Nature did it" is the exact same thing?

It comes down to that "E-word" you find so disturbing. (Evidence)

Of course geological processes can be investigated, but your ideology can't be.

Fortunately, ideology doesn't matter. Christians, atheists, Jews , Muslims, etc. all come up with the same conclusions, after considering the facts. Yes, it's a problem for your ideology, precisely because you avoid the facts.

No matter what you find, it will always be confirmation that "Nature did it"... either one way or another, or by some means you have yet to discover.

So far. Maybe someday we'll find something that says "Godmustadunnit." But it doesn't look very likely now, does it? The reason you are philosophically cut-off from the possibility of following data to a different conclusion, is because you prefer your man-made doctrines to the facts. You and your cohorts make this more clear with every post.

We all get this. You still haven't realized that being fundamentally opposed to the reality of creation also puts you at odds with the Creator.

But it's hard to see how that or your imaginary global flood could be possible. Since it would require processes not in evidence today, it would be quite a blow to uniformitarianism.

No it wouldn't.

Yep, it would. Your fellow YE creationists admit it, when they suppose all those extra non-biblical miracles to cover up the unsolvable problems posed by a world-wide flood. It should probably be noted that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global, but we already know YE creationists have amended the Bible to conform to their new doctrines.

It would just be evidence of what "nature" did. Remember that in Lyell's day, it was "hard to see" how catastrophism played any major role in earth history.

Then it's kinda odd that Lyell discussed catastrophic change, and the evidence for it. You'd be a lot more effective against science if you knew what it actually says.

The trouble is that you still believe that your faith requires you to ignore data and evidence. But it doesn't. God never asked that of you. A very few YE creationists have admitted that the evidence supports evolutionary change and does not support a worldwide flood.

Obviously, most of you guys are never ever going to entertain that possibility because it would be a disaster from a Public-Relations point of view... logically speaking, your ideology cannot deal with the fact that a global flood model, contradicts physics and geology. So we get an evidence-free "Godmustadunnit."

lifepsyop · Jul 10, 2020

The Barbarian said:
Fortunately, ideology doesn't matter.

Those who deny the existence of their ideological motivations, are typically the ones most blind to them. The fiercest of ideologues have always claimed a monopoly on the evidence.

And now you're actually arguing that Lyell was a catastrophist, or at the least letting such an equivocation linger for unwitting readers... It's just sad to watch. The historical revision goes well with the immunity to facts. One can perceive an almost frantic instinct to conceal even the slightest weakness that might call the ideology into question.

The Barbarian · Jul 10, 2020

Fortunately, ideology doesn't matter. Christians, atheists, Jews , Muslims, etc. all come up with the same conclusions, after considering the facts. Yes, it's a problem for your ideology, precisely because you avoid the facts.

lifepsyop said:
Those who deny the existence of their ideological motivations, are typically the ones most blind to them.

Which would explain why you were accusing everyone else of having them, while denying it for yourself. As you just learned, people of all sorts of ideologies are capable of understanding the evidence. Your ideological fixation keeps you as far away from evidence as you can get.

The fiercest of ideologues have always claimed a monopoly on the evidence.

Doesn't seem so; you, for example have avoided it like the plague.

And now you're actually arguing that Lyell was a catastrophist

I'm just pointing out that Lyell wrote about various kinds of catastrophic change and how to recognize them in the rocks. If you think that makes him a "catatrophist", you'll have to do more than just insist that it's true. It appears that your argument is specious, and you are just letting such an equivocation linger for unwitting readers... It's just sad to watch.

Your historical revision goes well with the immunity to facts. One can perceive an almost frantic instinct to conceal even the slightest weakness that might call your new doctrines into question.

Job 33:6 · Jul 11, 2020

lifepsyop said:
Okay, I'll concede that Ager has embraced the new and utterly worthless meaning of the term (which can mean literally anything happened as long as it is attributed to natural process) ... This really has no effect on my argument since I was specifically criticizing the foundational Lyellian worldview, from which your same source likewise concedes that modern geology was "brainwashed" into misinterpreting earth history. (and the facts support that claim) ..

You still have trouble admitting that part, of course, despite the facts.

And directly preceding Ager's quote at your link:

- Uniformitarianism was proposed in contrast to catastrophism, which states that the distant past "consisted of epochs of paroxysmal and catastrophic action interposed between periods of comparative tranquility"[41] Especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most geologists took this interpretation to mean that catastrophic events are not important in geologic time; -

Isn't it funny how modern geology was completely wrong about how they interpreted earth history, (negligible catastrophism) ... and yet still claims vindication, even using the exact same terminology?

There is a major red-flag there for anyone with eyes to see it. With modern naturalistic geology, we are clearly dealing with a philosophy... an ideology... and *not* an objective science that is following the data wherever it may lead....

It's like young-earth creationists being pleasantly surprised that, even after overhauling and revising their flood models over the centuries, they still arrive at the same conclusion that a global flood occurred in recent history. But we all know (and YEC's admit themselves) that this is ultimately because they are philosophically constrained by the metaphysics of the Genesis worldview. They will not think outside of that box. All of their hypotheses and models and theories always lead to the same conclusion: That a recent global flood happened. They always feel vindicated on that fundamental belief, regardless what the data may show. This is exactly like your naturalist camp.... Exactly.

Though I'm sure you'd rather crawl over broken glass than admit it.... it's exactly the same as evolutionists/naturalists who cannot consider the possibility of an earth that wasn't shaped over millions and billions of years by naturalistic processes. You just can't do it... Even if the data is screaming at you, pointing in the opposite direction, you could not possibly entertain the possibility that your worldview is incorrect. Even when you are catastrophically wrong (pun intended) in your fundamental interpretations of earth history... well, we can see right here the result. You simply revise your terminology to mean whatever you want it to mean and march on with your ideology as if nothing had happened.

It could not be more clear, and yet you can't see it. Your whole lives you've been taught that yours is the correct thinking, and cannot possibly entertain the idea of being wrong, even when confronted with the facts of your ideology's failure. In your eyes, even your failures are just more proof of how right you are. It's a stunning thing to behold.

When you have an actual sensible argument against the science itself, feel free to let me know.

The Barbarian · Jul 11, 2020

Slow learner, he is. I was hoping that at some point, he'd realize content-free generic accusations can be reversed on him. But it doesn't seem that he's catching on.

lifepsyop · Jul 11, 2020

KomatiiteBIF said:
When you have an actual sensible argument against the science itself, feel free to let me know.

Yea... these types of exchanges (where evolutionists are challenged to actually examine their belief-system) usually devolve into chanting the word "SCIENCE" over and over again like it is some kind of liturgical spell.

Till next time, I guess.

The Barbarian · Jul 11, 2020

lifepsyop said:
Yea... these types of exchanges (where evolutionists are challenged to actually examine their belief-system) usually devolve into chanting the word "SCIENCE" over and over again like it is some kind of liturgical spell.

You seem to have totally missed all of the evidence presented. That's pretty much the usual for creationists. You were stunned to learn that Lyell wrote at some length about catastrophic change and how to recognize it in the rocks of the crust. Then you pretended no one mentioned it.

I showed you that the stories they told you about erosion at Mt. St. Helens were false, and I even showed you a photograph I took when the eruption was fairly recent, showing you the fact. You ignored it.

Komatiite showed you that "uniformitarianism" doesn't mean what you were told it mean, and that it never did. You denied the fact, pretending that none of this was shown to you.

Do you really think anyone hasn't noticed?

Job 33:6 · Jul 11, 2020

lifepsyop said:
Yea... these types of exchanges (where evolutionists are challenged to actually examine their belief-system) usually devolve into chanting the word "SCIENCE" over and over again like it is some kind of liturgical spell.

Till next time, I guess.

Like I said, when you have an actual argument (particularly against geology), feel free to let me know.

Right now your just aimlessly talking about irrelevant semantics.

Jipsah · Jul 13, 2020

lifepsyop said:
"Science" automatically rejects any accounts of supernatural events in the Bible from the outset.

Science, the real kind, doesn't accept anything as factual without empirical evidence. It doesn't really matter whether the assertion involves supernatural activity or not, if you can't show any evidence of your claim, then as far as science is concerned it didn't happen. That's just how it works.

It seems to me that Christian/Theistic evolutionists tend to reject a supernatural worldview in general.

Not if they confess the Creeds of the Church, they don't.

It's not so much a persuasion of evidence, as a general alignment with the modern metaphysical worldview of naturalism.

Nah, I think that charge is baseless.

Jipsah · Jul 13, 2020

lifepsyop said:
Maybe I worded that poorly... what I meant was that the philosophical basis of modern science is an outright rejection of the supernatural.

Science requires natural evidence. Supernatural phenomena typically don't leave any, or such natural evidence as they leave can't be identified as supernatural.

Even if a team of scientists somehow went back in time and witnessed the Red Sea parting during the Exodus, all it would inspire is the task of discovering secret natural motions behind the phenomenon.

Yep, that's how it works.

The modern scientific institutions are metaphysically constrained to a naturalistic interpretation of reality.

Not metaphysically, it's simply that science is the study of nature, and doesn't touch on the supernatural at all.

Jipsah · Jul 13, 2020

lifepsyop said:
One of the more surprising revelations I've had is how traditional Creationists are unknowingly boxed into the same metaphysical worldview as the Evolutionists. (e.g. they are consumed with the task of finding and explaining naturalistic mechanisms associated the global flood)

Probably from the very reasonable assumption that you can't have a global deluge without it leaving natural, empirical evidence of it having happened.

... There are many creationists who would be uncomfortable discussing the idea of spirits and angels and demons interacting in our world, (even though the Bible states these things plainly) as such things are so far removed from modern naturalistic sensibilities.

Spirits, angels, and demons are outside the purview of science, which can neither confirm or deny their existence or agency.

Jipsah · Jul 13, 2020

lifepsyop said:
No, mainstream science IS methodological naturalism. It was built on that philosophical foundation. It cannot interpret reality outside of this box.

Just so.

I'm suggesting is that Christians (or any Theists) who accept Evolution, do so not from a specific evaluation of the evidence, but a general alignment with a naturalistic philosophy of the world and its history.

My response is that the charge is baseless, and based purely on your personal prejudices.

(in other words, they would tend to outright reject supernatural accounts in the Old Testament whether or not conventional Evolution/Archeology even comments on them)

Depends on what the account says. Some believe that the earth is flat based on what they believe Scripture teaches (in fact it does not, but that's for another time.) Simple observation proves that the earth is not flat, so most of us would reject any assertion, Scriptural or otherwise, that insists that it is flat. Far froim being a matter of a sort of religious faith in natural science, it's simply a matter of believing the observed realities around us. That's why most people reject the "scientific" canard that everything "just happened" as a result of a "big bang". That idea that the observed univese and all that's in it "just happened" is too absurd for most people to embrace.

Question for Christians who believe in Evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Regular Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Regular Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Blood Drinker

Similar threads