Evidence for macro-evolution

[AV1611VET]

Truth be told, there is absolutely no geological evidence of a world wide Noah flood.

What's the reason they give for that?

The evidence of a global catastrophic flood like that would be clear as day.

Assuming it would still be around.

But there just isn't any evidence of said flood to be found anywhere.

Keep looking.

Let me know when you don't find any.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they don't. Humans evolved from Australopithecus.

That's considered the final stage ... right?

What was the initial stage?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Will, the claim was that it went from single cells to humans.

I did personally.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And that's why I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution, nobody can defend it on objective scientific grounds.

No, you're asking us to try and defend evolution per your own unfounded ideas of how evolution and mutation works. That's neither objective nor scientific.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Assuming it would still be around.

Then it's pointless to even try and say it happened. There's no evidence for it either way, period.

 

[Shemjaza]

Most people don't, but you'd have to argue that with Darwinists, they literally still believe humans evolved from single celled bacteria like organism through purely random mutations!

Yep... and those can add information to the genome.

 

[Astrid]

I take issue when he states entropy always works in the one direction.
He eats and breathes and does disgusting things involving eliminating waste which indicates he is an open thermodynamic system.

Theres synthesis going on there, but not of info.

 

[Astrid]

Will, the claim was that it went from single cells to humans.

Will? Dont call me Will.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it's pointless to even try and say it happened. There's no evidence for it either way, period.

That logic rules out the whole Bible then, doesn't it?

Or most of It.

 

[BCP1928]

That logic rules out the whole Bible then, doesn't it?

Or most of It.

It depends on what you think the Bible is for.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends on what you think the Bible is for.

No, it doesn't.

 

[BCP1928]

No, it doesn't.

I use the Bible for instruction, reproof and training in righteousness. So, no, I don't think lack of evidence, or even evidence against, a global flood rules out the whole Bible--not even the flood story.

What do you use the Bible for?

 

[Astrid]

I use the Bible for instruction, reproof and training in righteousness. So, no, I don't think lack of evidence, or even evidence against, a global flood rules out the whole Bible--not even the flood story.

What do you use the Bible for?

Use it for?

Several here think that all they have to do is
have faith in their personal infallibility, and
believe whatever intrrpretation they choose to
make up.

That way they know more than every resesrcher on earth.


With no effort.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, no, I don't think lack of evidence, or even evidence against, a global flood rules out the whole Bible--not even the flood story.

Do you think it is "pointless to even try and say [something] happened, if there's no evidence for it either way"?

Examples: the Flood, the tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the Resurrection, anything?

What do you use the Bible for?

The Bible is my Standard for faith and practice.

It dictates, in writing, what I am responsible for believing.

And in the end, we will use It to judge the angels.

 

[AV1611VET]

That way they know more than every researcher on earth.

No researcher who ever lived, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow can research the conversations that were documented between God and His people.

And any researcher who deliberately narrows his beliefs to what can be physically verified, will be outclassed by those who believe what God said to Adam, Eve, Noah, Abram, Moses, et alii.

So yes.

You are correct.

Even little children would know way, Way, WAY more than any empiricist who ever lived, alive today, or will be alive tomorrow.

WAY MORE!

 

[NxNW]

Will? Dont call me Will.

Shirley you jest.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you think it is "pointless to even try and say [something] happened, if there's no evidence for it either way"?

Examples: the Flood, the tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Ten Commandments, the Resurrection, anything?

There is plenty of evidence for large scale floods which could have been the basis for the flood story in the Bible for people who would like it to have a factual basis. If you think that there must have been an actual global flood to make that story useful then you are using it for reasons I do not understand.

The Bible is my Standard for faith and practice.

It dictates, in writing, what I am responsible for believing.

And in the end, we will use It to judge the angels.

In most forms of Christianity you are only required to believe what it says in the Nicene Creed.

 

[AV1611VET]

In most forms of Christianity you are only required to believe what it says in the Nicene Creed.

So what's going to happen if you are put in charge of judging an angel who participated in something you went your whole life believing never happened?

Would you want our judges being that ignorant today?

 

[BCP1928]

So what's going to happen if you are put in charge of judging an angel who participated in something you went your whole life believing never happened?

Would you want our judges being that ignorant today?

That makes no sense at all. What Angels? On what evidence is the Angel being charged? Why am I the judge? What event do I believe never happened?

 

[AV1611VET]

In most forms of Christianity you are only required to believe what it says in the Nicene Creed.

We make a distinction between "Christianity" and "Christiandom."

That makes no sense at all. What Angels? On what evidence is the Angel being charged? Why am I the judge? What event do I believe never happened?

1 Corinthians 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?