Challenge thread: Show me where in evolution is it anti-God.

[Bungle_Bear]

So what are we?

We are animals.

I know, your head probably hurts trying to work out how that can be.

 

[ottawak]

So what are we?

Decendants of a line which at some point started to become gradually more animal-like while some of their other relatives started to become more plant-like, and some, like the ancestors of the bacteria, stayed pretty much the same except for getting better at being neither plant nor animal.-

 

[Astrid]

Decendants of a line which at some point started to become gradually more animal-like while some of their other relatives started to become more plant-like, and some, like the ancestors of the bacteria, stayed pretty much the same except for getting better at being neither plant nor animal.-

What organisms today are both plantlike and animal like

 

[Astrid]

You know... that is a better one.

Geologists didnt set out to disprove the flood.

 

[Astrid]

I'm pretty sure when i say evolution is an explanation incompatible with God, where is God in evolution?, everyone needs to realize God is real, after that is not so hard to discard evolution. Also we have a soul inside, biologists say our thoughts come from the brain.... there is a whole spiritual world and people are really blind. The greatest 'conspiracy theory' of all time that is not a conspiracy theory at all, that the devil has the world blinded to not see God, somehow God and his people need to snatch people from the devil hands, the most important part in life is meeting the creator nothing else matters. I can't stress enough that this world is upside down and people don't realize God can be close to us and that we need him. So before people say this is off topic or that i'm preaching i don't care, the truth is not off topic or 'preaching'.

Also the bible talks how not many of us christians are rich or powerful or wise by human standards, because the people invited to God kingdom didn't want to come because of their pride, but the 'broken' people accepted the invitation, so is not like God is discrminating the rich and smart/wise in world standards its just they have a hard time accepting the gospel sadly.

Starting with a conclusion is an example of .....what?
Do you know any applicable terms for it?
How about claims of truth based on?

 

[AV1611VET]

Geologists didnt set out to disprove the flood.

They probably were taught the Flood was a local one, so they only went to look in one place.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

They probably were taught the Flood was a local one, so they only went to look in one place.

True. They were taught the Flood was only on Earth, so they didn't look for water on Neptune.

Oh wait, Neptune was still an unknown planet. How many planets were there back then?

 

[Astrid]

True. They were taught the Flood was only on Earth, so they didn't look for water on Neptune.

Oh wait, Neptune was still an unknown planet. How many planets were there back then?

The Conspiracy to deflect from the observation that
geologists who thought they were studying
" flood" formations presently found that its
impossible to reconcile the "flood" with
what they actually found?

Darwin showed "kinds" are not immutable
as taught.
Geologists found thete had bern
no flood.
Its not what they set out to do.
Simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Geologists found there had been no flood.

Its not what they set out to do.

Then they can keep their opinion to themselves.

How do you "accidentally" find there had been no Flood?

I didn't set out to find the Loch Ness Monster.

Guess what?

I didn't find the Loch Ness Monster.

Does that mean I can claim there had never been a Loch Ness Monster?

Only in academia.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then they can keep their opinion to themselves.

How do you "accidentally" find there had been no Flood?

I didn't set out to find the Loch Ness Monster.

Guess what?

I didn't find the Loch Ness Monster.

Does that mean I can claim there had never been a Loch Ness Monster?

Only in academia.

By trying to find evidence of the Flood and then finding not a single trace of evidence for the Flood in the process.

That's an accident.

Although, I bet if you'd been alive back then, you could have told them that all the evidence was cleaned up in meandering rivers, the White Cliffs of Dover, and the water had shot up to Neptune. Which was discovered in 1846.

 

[AV1611VET]

Geologists found there had been no flood.

Its not what they set out to do.

By trying to find evidence of the Flood and then finding not a single trace of evidence for the Flood in the process.

Which is it?

Did geologists "not set out to find the flood"? or did geologists "try to find evidence of the Flood"?

Make up my mind please.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which is it?

Did geologists "not set out to find the flood"? or did geologists "try to find evidence of the Flood"?

Make up my mind please.

I've got no idea why Estrid claimed that geologists set out NOT to the find evidence for the Flood since that's just a weird sentence. But yes, historical geologists did set out to find evidence for the Flood just to say that it did happen. And then were proven wrong by finding no evidence of the Flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

But yes, historical geologists did set out to find evidence for the Flood just to say that it did happen. And then were proven wrong by finding no evidence of the Flood.

How long ago?

 

[Astrid]

I've got no idea why Estrid claimed that geologists set out NOT to the find evidence for the Flood since that's just a weird sentence. But yes, historical geologists did set out to find evidence for the Flood just to say that it did happen. And then were proven wrong by finding no evidence of the Flood.

I may be mistaken. My memory from 101 was that Lyell- ?- was
investigating geology in Scotland, and assumimg as did
everyone else, that he was looking at flood geology.

What he found was a total mismatch.

Do you have a reference for t " judt to say..."?
That seems imorobable to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How long ago?

Technically, it was Nicholas Desmarest's 1744 work on volcanoes that cast into doubt the earth only being 6,000 years old and also that any Flood would have been local not global, while Georges Cuvier examination of geological strata around Paris around about the actual start of the 1800s.

And then there was also the founding of the Geological Society of London in 1807 and their study of the various quarries and cliffs in Britain.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I may be mistaken. My memory from 101 was that Lyell- ?- was
investigating geology in Scotland, and assumimg as did
everyone else, that he was looking at flood geology.

What he found was a total mismatch.

Do you have a reference for t " judt to say..."?
That seems imorobable to me.

Me saying 'just to say' was a bit blase, I will admit, but before the mid 1700's, the prevailing theory at the time was that the geological layers of the Earth was formed through the Flood. John Woodward's 1695 An Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth, even had the idea that the Flood basically reduced the world to slurry, catching all the animals in it before hardening into the crusts and layers we see today (or at the time, rather). Though even he had to apply miracles to it to explain why lower layers of strata were not horrible crushed by the weight of the strata above.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technically, it was Nicholas Desmarest's 1744 work on volcanoes that cast into doubt the earth only being 6,000 years old and also that any Flood would have been local not global, while Georges Cuvier examination of geological strata around Paris around about the actual start of the 1800s.

And then there was also the founding of the Geological Society of London in 1807 and their study of the various quarries and cliffs in Britain.

Historical geologists haven't updated their equipment since then?

Why aren't they looking again, with their Johnny-come-Lately Tinkertech Toys?

Or was a conclusion made two hundred years ago good enough for today?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Historical geologists haven't updated their equipment since then?

Why aren't they looking again, with their Johnny-come-Lately Tinkertech Toys?

Or was a conclusion made two hundred years ago good enough for today?

... why would geologists that have been dead for over 200 years be doing anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

... why would geologists that have been dead for over 200 years be doing anything?

Fair enough.

I'll take your points with a grain of salt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

I'll take your points with a grain of salt.

Why would you take them with a grain of salt? You really are not making sense now.

Modern geology shows that there was no global Flood.

And I'm going to ask for this thread to be closed.