A global flood is simply untenable

[Ragdoll]

Interesting. So those hundreds of thousands of species evolved after the flood? That would involve a lot of evolution. You might be surprised that someone (a YE creationist BTW) actually tried to calculate the room needed and how much hyperevolution would be necessary after the flood. Try to find Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe (a nom de plume, BTW) which discusses the issue. It has some big holes in its assumption, but I'll leave them for you to find. Hint: what is the scientific definition of biological evolution?

Or if you'd like to discuss some of them here, I'll be happy to show them to you. I've discussed this with Woodmorappe; he seemed like a sincere and decent fellow.

Nobody ever denied micro-changes. The debate is over macro-evolution. Huge difference.

 

[Ragdoll]

Big wave, but hardly a global flood. The K-T disaster was rather different than a flood. We know that it was worldwide, because there's a layer of iridium dust at a specific time, laid down over the entire Earth. Iridium is a significant component in most asteroids, but not in the Earth's crust. You've been misled about that in some respects, it seems. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good and up to date, but you probably want to search "Deccan Traps" for some other possible contributing factors.

Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you have some background in geology, there are more technical articles out there. Let me know if you'd like to read them.

I reject Wikipedia as a source of information and for good reason. I have caught them in several lies about what the Bible says or what church fathers say. Spend less time on wiki and become a much more informed person.
Iridium is naturally found on earth. Volcanoes give off iridium emissions which explains the layer called the K-T Boundary which was laid down during the Flood.

 

[The Barbarian]

I reject Wikipedia as a source of information

You missed the scientific papers I showed you? Let me show you again:

Geophysical Letters

A search for iridium in the Deccan Traps and Inter-Traps ​

R. Rocchia, D. Boclet, V. Courtillot, J. J. Jaeger

First published: August 1988

Abstract​

It has been suggested that flood basalts in the Deccan (India) might be associated with events at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KTB). A search for iridium in 47 samples from lava flows and inter-trap sediments in the Deccan yields negative results. Concentrations are not statistically different from zero, with a minimum detection level on the order of 0.1 ng.g−1 (ppb).

One would think we would see at least as much iridium in the Deccan traps as there is elsewhere. It doesn't absolutely rule out iridium coming from the traps, but it seems unlikely, especially when...

Science Advances Vol. 7, No. 9

Globally distributed iridium layer preserved within the Chicxulub impact structure​

Abstract​

The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction is marked globally by elevated concentrations of iridium, emplaced by a hypervelocity impact event 66 million years ago. Here, we report new data from four independent laboratories that reveal a positive iridium anomaly within the peak-ring sequence of the Chicxulub impact structure, in drill core recovered by IODP-ICDP Expedition 364. The highest concentration of ultrafine meteoritic matter occurs in the post-impact sediments that cover the crater peak ring, just below the lowermost Danian pelagic limestone. Within years to decades after the impact event, this part of the Chicxulub impact basin returned to a relatively low-energy depositional environment, recording in unprecedented detail the recovery of life during the succeeding millennia. The iridium layer provides a key temporal horizon precisely linking Chicxulub to K-Pg boundary sections worldwide.

Far as I know there is one case of iridium being found in large amounts in volcanic eruptions.

Science
9 Dec 1983

Iridium Enrichment in Airborne Particles from Kilauea Volcano: January 1983​

Abstract​

Airborne particulate matter from the January 1983 eruption of Kilauea volcano was inadvertently collected on air filters at Mauna Loa Observatory at a sampling station used to observe particles in global circulation. Analyses of affected samples revealed unusually large concentrations of selenium, arsenic, indium, gold, and sulfur, as expected for volcanic emissions. Strikingly large concentrations of iridium were also observed, the ratio of iridium to aluminum being 17,000 times its value in Hawaiian basalt. Since iridium enrichments have not previously been observed in volcanic emissions, the results for Kilauea suggest that it is part of an unusual volcanic system which may be fed by magma from the mantle. The iridium enrichment appears to be linked with the high fluorine content of the volcanic gases, which suggests that the iridium is released as a volatile IrF6.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nobody ever denied micro-changes. The debate is over macro-evolution. Huge difference.

You do realize that microevolution is within a species, and macroevoluton...

macroevolution /măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-/

noun Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.​

Remember when I suggested that not knowing much about the subject was holding you back? It just happened again.

 

[Ragdoll]

You do realize that microevolution is within a species, and macroevoluton...

macroevolution /măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-/

noun Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.​

Remember when I suggested that not knowing much about the subject was holding you back? It just happened again.

Micro-change is not macro-evolution. No scientist has ever observed macro-evolution and therefore macro-evolution is not approved by scientific method.

 

[The Barbarian]

Micro-change is not macro-evolution.

To be precise, speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.

No scientist has ever observed macro-evolution

Even many creationist organization now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families come from earlier species.

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Dictionary of Biology

Again, if you don't even know what words mean, you'll have a difficult time discussing them.

 

[Ragdoll]

To be precise, speciation is macroevolution. Microevolution is change within a species.


Even many creationist organization now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families come from earlier species.

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Dictionary of Biology

Again, if you don't even know what words mean, you'll have a difficult time discussing them.

There has never been a time when creationists denied micro-change. But to say micro-change is macro-evolution is a stretch and one no atheist can admit to. But its quite and stretch and wishful thinking on part of atheists who believe such nonsense. Macro-evolution has never been observed.

 

[Ragdoll]

You missed the scientific papers I showed you? Let me show you again:

Geophysical Letters

A search for iridium in the Deccan Traps and Inter-Traps ​

R. Rocchia, D. Boclet, V. Courtillot, J. J. Jaeger

First published: August 1988

Abstract​

It has been suggested that flood basalts in the Deccan (India) might be associated with events at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KTB). A search for iridium in 47 samples from lava flows and inter-trap sediments in the Deccan yields negative results. Concentrations are not statistically different from zero, with a minimum detection level on the order of 0.1 ng.g−1 (ppb).

One would think we would see at least as much iridium in the Deccan traps as there is elsewhere. It doesn't absolutely rule out iridium coming from the traps, but it seems unlikely, especially when...

Science Advances Vol. 7, No. 9

Globally distributed iridium layer preserved within the Chicxulub impact structure​

Abstract​

The Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) mass extinction is marked globally by elevated concentrations of iridium, emplaced by a hypervelocity impact event 66 million years ago. Here, we report new data from four independent laboratories that reveal a positive iridium anomaly within the peak-ring sequence of the Chicxulub impact structure, in drill core recovered by IODP-ICDP Expedition 364. The highest concentration of ultrafine meteoritic matter occurs in the post-impact sediments that cover the crater peak ring, just below the lowermost Danian pelagic limestone. Within years to decades after the impact event, this part of the Chicxulub impact basin returned to a relatively low-energy depositional environment, recording in unprecedented detail the recovery of life during the succeeding millennia. The iridium layer provides a key temporal horizon precisely linking Chicxulub to K-Pg boundary sections worldwide.

Far as I know there is one case of iridium being found in large amounts in volcanic eruptions.

Science
9 Dec 1983

Iridium Enrichment in Airborne Particles from Kilauea Volcano: January 1983​

Abstract​

Airborne particulate matter from the January 1983 eruption of Kilauea volcano was inadvertently collected on air filters at Mauna Loa Observatory at a sampling station used to observe particles in global circulation. Analyses of affected samples revealed unusually large concentrations of selenium, arsenic, indium, gold, and sulfur, as expected for volcanic emissions. Strikingly large concentrations of iridium were also observed, the ratio of iridium to aluminum being 17,000 times its value in Hawaiian basalt. Since iridium enrichments have not previously been observed in volcanic emissions, the results for Kilauea suggest that it is part of an unusual volcanic system which may be fed by magma from the mantle. The iridium enrichment appears to be linked with the high fluorine content of the volcanic gases, which suggests that the iridium is released as a volatile IrF6.

Now I know when in online debates people tend to throw out terms like "mental gymnastics" around just to say that when they disagree with somebody. But this is the single most classic example of mental gymnastics. When I studied iridium concentrations around the world that study was not connected to the study of origins. And when you remove your search from the origin debate and just look at real science you will find a whole different view out there from real scientists who work with real people who work real jobs. Iridium is mined and its a rare metal that sells for a pretty penny. Its used a lot for military hardware like tanks etc. When you look at iridium concentrations around the world you will find real information in the field where people mine for iridium. Hence iridium concentrations are higher in other countries like Russia etc. than they are in all of Mexico. And what do all these countries that mine iridium share in common? They are located in volcanic zones!!

If the Chicxulub asteroid actually did happen then we would find higher amounts of iridium in the impact zone than any other part in the world by far. But that is not the case. As for the alleged K-T Boundary. That is a layer created by volcanoes and not some mystical asteroid. Think about it. What is more likely true. Volcanoes that give off iridium emissions being the case or some giant asteroid nobody has ever proven ever happened? The odds of volcanoes being the source and cause of iridium are just too high to believe some asteroid theory that most likely did not happen. There are so many problems with the K/pg theory that its not worth straining yourself trying to write a wall of philosophy trying to convince others through the art of eloquent speech. The true explanation is often the simple explanation. The Flood has no problems explaining the fossil record. I don't even have to strain my mind to defend it. We have everything we need to know the Flood happened.
The ONLY reason evolutionists denied the Flood was to make room for long ages that would make their theory sound more believable. They knew the Flood could explain everything is a short amount of time. But that short amount of time is not what evolutionists needed to support their theory. And yet by rejecting the Flood they lost the only thing that can explain sedimentary rock, the process of fossilization, rapid erosion, and why there are marine fossils found everywhere up in the highest peaks of all the mountains of the world. They also have a very hard time explaining the origin of water or how water survive the alleged K/pg theory?? We creationists have none of these problems. For us the issue is satisfactorily resolved. We need no further explanation.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now I know when in online debates people tend to throw out terms like "mental gymnastics" around just to say that when they disagree with somebody. But this is the single most classic example of mental gymnastics. When I studied iridium concentrations around the world that study was not connected to the study of origins.

Neither are the research reports I showed you. But notice that contrary to the stories you were told, iridium is present in quantity at the Chixulub impact site. And note also that iridium is not notably present in most volcanic sites.

And when you remove your search from the origin debate and just look at real science you will find a whole different view out there from real scientists who work with real people who work real jobs.

Science is one of the world's premier scientific journals, so "they are all lying" is not going to work for you. Guess how we know you don't know very much about science.

As for the alleged K-T Boundary. That is a layer created by volcanoes and not some mystical asteroid.

First, as you seem to now realize, the Chixulub event is well documented, with abundant evidence at the impact site. It's interesting that the Deccan Traps seem to have happened at the same time, or very close to the same time on the opposite side of the planet. And they might indeed have contributed to the K-T extinction event. However:

It has been suggested that flood basalts in the Deccan (India) might be associated with events at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary (KTB). A search for iridium in 47 samples from lava flows and inter-trap sediments in the Deccan yields negative results. Concentrations are not statistically different from zero, with a minimum detection level on the order of 0.1 ng.g−1 (ppb).
(cited above)

The lack of iridium in the outflow from the traps seems to indicate that they didn't contribute much to the worldwide fall of iridium at the time. Since the Deccan Traps were not produced by a Plinian eruption, they wouldn't have blown much of anything into the upper atmosphere. Instead of Mt. St. Helens, think of Muana Low, only on a much larger scale.

The ONLY reason evolutionists denied the Flood was to make room for long ages that would make their theory sound more believable.

Actually, that's not true, either. If there was a worldwide flood, it would say nothing about the age of the Earth. All those additions YE creationists make, supposing that continents were moving tens of miles per day, are unscriptural and would have boiled the seas in any event.

And yet by rejecting the Flood they lost the only thing that can explain sedimentary rock, the process of fossilization, rapid erosion, and why there are marine fossils found everywhere up in the highest peaks of all the mountains of the world.

None of that is surprising to geologists. We see sedimentary rock forming in all sorts of places today. Fossilization is very well understood, and it continues. Erosion happens at all sorts of rates, depending on the nature of the rock and the frequency, kind, and intensity of the eroding factors. And as you would know if you every studied the Earth, you would know that marine fossils are found only on mountains (certainly not all of them; the Cascades, for example don't have them) where coastline was pushed up by plate collisions. Would you like to learn how we know all this?

Took a lot of time to find out. In real science, explanations must be supported by evidence, not by inventing new miracles to cover up the inconsistencies in an explanation. The evidence has to be reproducible and from independent sources.

We creationists have none of these problems.

No kidding.

 

[The Barbarian]

There has never been a time when creationists denied micro-change.

But for a long time they denied macroevolutionary change.

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.

Macroevolution

Definition noun, plural: macroevolutions Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups. Supplement Macroevolution involves variation of allele

www.biologyonline.com

They claimed that species were fixed and never changed. But as you know, this has been directly observed to happen.

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Many still do deny that it happens. Of course, even those that do admit the fact, don't call it "evolution." They make up new terms for the same thing.

 

[The Barbarian]

Micro-change is not macro-evolution.

As you learned, it's speciation or higher change.

No scientist has ever observed macro-evolution

Wrong. Even many creationist organizations admit macroevolutionary change producing new species, genera, and sometimes families.

and therefore macro-evolution is not approved by scientific method.

It's directly observed. Hard to get better "approval" than that. I think you've confused "macroevolution" with "common descent." Maybe it would be good for you to learn a little about the subject before trying to tell us about it?

 

[Ragdoll]

As you learned, it's speciation or higher change.


Wrong. Even many creationist organizations admit macroevolutionary change producing new species, genera, and sometimes families.

It's directly observed. Hard to get better "approval" than that. I think you've confused "macroevolution" with "common descent." Maybe it would be good for you to learn a little about the subject before trying to tell us about it?

There are no creationists who believe macro-evolution. I think we are done here.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are no creationists who believe macro-evolution. I think we are done here.

Dr. Wise is not an "evolutionist." He's just a YE creationist who is honest enough to admit the evidence. He still thinks there can be a viable YE creationist interpretation of the evidence.

Edit: We tend to mean "YE creationist" when we say "creationist", but there are of course evolutionary creationists who accept God's creation as it is.

 

[Ragdoll]

Dr. Wise is not an "evolutionist." He's just a YE creationist who is honest enough to admit the evidence. He still thinks there can be a viable YE creationist interpretation of the evidence.

Edit: We tend to mean "YE creationist" when we say "creationist", but there are of course evolutionary creationists who accept God's creation as it is.

I'm a creationist and never heard of Dr.Wise. I have no books from him.
I also find is very strange for anyone to refer to evolution as the way God created when evolution is creation minus God. As many evolutionists say time and time again, there is no room for a Creator God in evolution. Evolution is a random accident of chance. Its the nature made itself kind of reasoning which is a very ancient belief among some pagan sects. Romans 1:18-32 addresses all this and completely rejects evolution. All the church fathers rejected evolution. Why Christians fear evolution is beyond comprehension. They should being fearing God and not the vain imaginations of man.

I look at all it like this: I trust God over man. I trust His word, the Bible, over man's pseudointellectual attempts to defame God. If I read that God created the earth and all therein is in 6 days, then I believe it. If I read that God sent a Flood upon the earth to wide out all He created and start over again with Noah and his family and what he brought on the ark, then I believe it. The alternative to trusting God is to trust Darwin, Huxley, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, Biden, and AOC. I know better than to trust these people with anything. Trusting them with my soul is totally out of the question. I'll trust the clear word of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm a creationist and never heard of Dr.Wise. I have no books from him.

Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1 August 1959) is an American young Earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard University.[1] He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Starting in fall 2009 he has been the director of Truett McConnell University's newly created Creation Research Center in Cleveland, Georgia. Between August 2006 and May 2009 he taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as director of the school's Center for Theology and Science, a job in which he was preceded by intelligent design advocate William Dembski. He had previously taught at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee where he served as Director of the Center for Origins Research and as an Associate Professor of Science for seventeen years.
He served as consultant to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum which opened in 2007. Timothy H. Heaton, another scientist who studied under Stephen Jay Gould, knows Wise as "a less propaganda-oriented creationist" than Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, and said that Wise's influence on the displays was apparent.

Wise has said he believes, according to a literal reading of the Bible, "that the Earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it's less than ten thousand years in age." He believes that science can be used to support and demonstrate these claims. Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

You don't seem to know much about YE creationism, either. Dr. Wise is a very prominent YE creationist.

I also find is very strange for anyone to refer to evolution as the way God created when evolution is creation minus God.

Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. I showed you that once. Should I show you , again? Your assumption is absurdly wrong.

Evolution is a random accident of chance.

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Would you mind learning about this issue a bit before you come here to lecture us on it?

Its the nature made itself kind of reasoning which is a very ancient belief among some pagan sects.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Please go and inform yourself a bit before you trundle out all your misconceptions for us.

All the church fathers rejected evolution.

None of them said anything about it. You might as well say that all the church fathers rejected lymphocytes.

I trust God over man.

And yet you accept a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" revision of Genesis over God's own words.

 

[Ragdoll]

Kurt Patrick Wise (born 1 August 1959) is an American young Earth creationist who serves as the Director of Creation Research Center at Truett McConnell University in Cleveland, Georgia. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard University.[1] He writes in support of creationism and contributed to the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Starting in fall 2009 he has been the director of Truett McConnell University's newly created Creation Research Center in Cleveland, Georgia. Between August 2006 and May 2009 he taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary as director of the school's Center for Theology and Science, a job in which he was preceded by intelligent design advocate William Dembski. He had previously taught at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee where he served as Director of the Center for Origins Research and as an Associate Professor of Science for seventeen years.
He served as consultant to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum which opened in 2007. Timothy H. Heaton, another scientist who studied under Stephen Jay Gould, knows Wise as "a less propaganda-oriented creationist" than Ken Ham, the leader of Answers in Genesis, and said that Wise's influence on the displays was apparent.

Wise has said he believes, according to a literal reading of the Bible, "that the Earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it's less than ten thousand years in age." He believes that science can be used to support and demonstrate these claims. Despite believing that science supports his position, Wise has written that:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young Earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.

You don't seem to know much about YE creationism, either. Dr. Wise is a very prominent YE creationist.


Darwin, for example, thought that God just created the first living things. I showed you that once. Should I show you , again? Your assumption is absurdly wrong.


Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't by chance. Would you mind learning about this issue a bit before you come here to lecture us on it?



There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Please go and inform yourself a bit before you trundle out all your misconceptions for us.


None of them said anything about it. You might as well say that all the church fathers rejected lymphocytes.

And yet you accept a Seventh-Day Adventist "prophetess" revision of Genesis over God's own words.

You assume much. I am not an SDA nor do I accept Ellen White as a prophet. Darwin discovered nothing that wasn't already very ancient among pagan philosophers. Do you believe life came from stardust like Sagan and other evolutionists say?

Darwin's Descent of Man also borrowed beliefs from Hindu myths.

I've combed through several ancient texts and found the entire theory of evolution as we know it today. All Darwin did was collect these myths from various pagan philosophers and combine them together to create a super pagan religion in the guise of science. And after reading all these texts there is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. I cannot and will not ever accept evolution theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

You assume much. I am not an SDA nor do I accept Ellen White as a prophet.

But you are promoting her doctrines.

Darwin discovered nothing that wasn't already very ancient among pagan philosophers.

Natural selection was not known prior to his demonstration of how evolution worked. Some people suspected it, but most thought otherwise. Darwin showed it to be the primary agency of evolution. BTW, that wasn't his only major discovery. He demonstrated that barnacles are arthropods, not mollusks as previously thought and he showed how Pacific atolls form by subsiding volcanoes.

Do you believe life came from stardust like Sagan and other evolutionists say?

God says that life was brought forth from the Earth, so we would have to investigate and see where the matter in the Earth came from. We know that all elements heavier than lithium were formed in supernovae. We also know that many stars are formed when the shock wave of supernovae compress clouds of gas. So much of the Earth is formed from a supernova explosion. And thereby, much of the matter of your body is from start that exploded.

I've combed through several ancient texts and found the entire theory of evolution as we know it today.

Ironically, you found only something not in Darwin's theory. He had no way of knowing that common descent of all organisms on Earth was true, nor did he make that claim. Again, not knowing much about this sort of thing is precisely why you keep embarrassing yourself here. Please take a little time to learn about it, and then tell us what you know.

And after reading all these texts there is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. I cannot and will not ever accept evolution theory.

I get that. You've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the new faith of YE creationism that you may never escape. But for those still considering the issues, our discussion will be useful for them to think about what has been said here. So it's not been a waste of time.

BTW, here's the verse your guy cited:
KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

Seems to have just made up a story and tried to graft it onto God's word. And he wasn't speaking of the substances of the Earth, but of the Gnostic notion of spirit.

You have to consider the time and place he was in.

 

[Gary K]

I said artifacts, you know stuff cultures left around, I was refering to we have images of them right around the flood time, we have animals very close to after the flood showing up so they would have evolved from the 1-3 or what ever cat kinds within years wich is beyond anything tenable in evolution.

And dude posting the comnpletly debunked idea of that chinse character, thats not how chinese or such work.no one outside of christianity pesudoscience areas think thats even true. Plus you even point out it's mouth not person, and you don't break up the characters that way, it's two characters not three together.

I would recommend a book to you. It was written by a guy who was an investigative reporter for decades whose name was Rene Noorbergen. His book was called Secrets of the Lost Races. In it he documents evidence found that demonstrates the flood occurred.

Amazon.com : rene noorbergen

 

[The Barbarian]

I would recommend a book to you. It was written by a guy who was an investigative reporter for decades whose name was Rene Noorbergen. His book was called Secrets of the Lost Races.

Kind of a "Chariots of the Gods" thing, but with homegrown gods instead of aliens. If you're a fan of flapdoodle, this will not disappoint.

 

[Ragdoll]

But you are promoting her doctrines.

No I'm not. I have said nothing here that hasn't been held by Christians long before Ellen White.

Natural selection was not known prior to his demonstration of how evolution worked. Some people suspected it, but most thought otherwise. Darwin showed it to be the primary agency of evolution. BTW, that wasn't his only major discovery. He demonstrated that barnacles are arthropods, not mollusks as previously thought and he showed how Pacific atolls form by subsiding volcanoes.

Darwin accomplished nothing with his life. Every word he ever wrote and every thought he ever thought has been well refuted long before he was born. You can't waste a life as well as Darwin and Marx did.

God says that life was brought forth from the Earth, so we would have to investigate and see where the matter in the Earth came from. We know that all elements heavier than lithium were formed in supernovae. We also know that many stars are formed when the shock wave of supernovae compress clouds of gas. So much of the Earth is formed from a supernova explosion. And thereby, much of the matter of your body is from start that exploded.

Sounds like creation minus God here. This is what I would expect to find among those who reject Genesis as Scripture. Genesis 1:3 is not the Big Bang. There is no ancient church fathers who even dropped a hint about this. Even today we cannot even begin to account for the Big Bang since the universe in Genesis is a very dark place, starless and without light (for maybe the except of electromagnetic energy and photons). Genesis 1:2 tells us that God's Spirit moved over the earth and then He said "Let there be light." Now if this light was the big bang then the earth in its most primitive stage was completely destroyed. The stars were not created until Day 4 and reasonably so. Had God created the sun on Day1 it would have been self-defeating. God is not dumb. He created everything in very careful stages so that the earth would be able to sustain life. God allowed time for the magnetic field to reach full strength so that the sun would not destroy the earth. A very careful reading of Genesis reveals that Gen.1:3 -- the light -- is the core of the earth that gave life and shape to the earth. When you read Genesis this way everything makes perfect sense.

Ironically, you found only something not in Darwin's theory. He had no way of knowing that common descent of all organisms on Earth was true, nor did he make that claim. Again, not knowing much about this sort of thing is precisely why you keep embarrassing yourself here. Please take a little time to learn about it, and then tell us what you know.

Dr.Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister came around and proved Darwin's theory completely wrong--proving that the ancient held belief of spontaneous generation (aka, abiogenesis) cannot ever happen no matter how much time you want to give it.

I get that. You've been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the new faith of YE creationism that you may never escape. But for those still considering the issues, our discussion will be useful for them to think about what has been said here. So it's not been a waste of time.

I was open minded from the start. I just had enough common sense to know the difference between God and random chance. Then when I read the church fathers on the subject it confirmed for me the reasons why I continue to hold to YEC. To find evolution theory so well debated among the early church was enough for me. Darwin was a teacher of godlessness. A false prophet who is still worshiped today at the expense of us tax payers.

I place my faith in God and what He said He did. Even IF the position I hold is wrong I know it won't be held against me. But that's a Big IF and not very likely. I see what evolutionists have done to our western world and all the godlessness that has come from belief in evolution and recognize all this as bad works of the spirit, not bearing good fruit. Jesus said no good tree will bear bad fruit. I believe what Jesus said and will continue to reject what Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and AOC say.