Evolution is a lie because... (Split from "Scientific proof of flood.")

[Split Rock]

There is no verse in the Bible that declares the earth isn't extremely old. the time period between Genesis 1:1-2 and verse 3 is unknowable. However, evidence exists that shows that the basement rock of the earth was formed rapidly no matter when it was first formed.

I would love to see some of this evidence.

Do you believe that there were huge herds of woolly mammoths during supposed ice ages that wandered around with hair for protection against the cold but, no means of finding a sufficient food source able to supply them the tons of food they needed every day for sustenance? Ice ages is a ridiculous notion.

Joman.

I agree that the first sentence is ridiculous. What that has to do with the second sentence is beyond me. The evidence for Ice Ages in the past, in particular the last one, are so convincing that no Creation Ministry I know of denies it. This includes AIG and ICR. The problem is they have to shoe-horn it into their 6,000 year earth model. If you can't rap your mind around the fact that in the recent past most of North America was covered in glaciers, then that is your problem. I don't suppose you have studied the evidence, or even basic geology?

 

[Joman]

I'll remember that next time a creationist posts something about the number of Americans who don't agree with evolution.

Public opinion as well as majority opinion is no litmus test for validity.

But majority can indeed be an important factor when it's a majority in a population of people who know about what their opinion is based on.

The majority of scientists can be manipulated by political, religious, economic and peer pressure. The scientific community has never shown immunity to these factors. In Russia for example all scientists had to toe the evolution/mechanistic political line if they wanted to find a opprotunity to participate in scientific endeavors. It is the same throughout the world to varying degrees. It appears to me that most people who use the "majority rules" specious logic are seeking unfair advantage by relying on it to sway opinion apart from reliance upon objective truth.

If it is true that the majority of the American population doesn't believe in Evolution, this is not an especially important statistic because that population is not, as a whole, particularly understanding about what they're disagreeing with.

Your opinion here is unsupported. Why people don't believe in evolution is open to debate in my opinion. The majority could simply not wish to consider anything contrary to their privately held religious beliefs. I know that I myself remain unconvinced that evolutionism adds any useful knowledge to mankind.

If the majority of scientists disagreed with evolution this would be statistically important because the reasons for this figure are deep and far-reaching.

Again, useless conjecture. True evolutionists would not give up their belief in the scientific validity of macroevolution just because some new paradigm is instituted by some reigning majority of scientists. They would as individuals demand scientific truth not politically correct compliance with some party line opinion about the interpretation of facts.

If the majority of Christians feel a particular way about their faith then, as with the above example, this is potentially important because of the far-reaching reasons as to why. However, if the majority of Muslims or Hindus had an opinion about the deep-workings of Christianity this would not be considered so important because they may not be invested enough or have learned enough to be able to make a meaningful analysis. As it is, however, creationists are the minority fringe.

Although there is some truth in what you are saying I must point out that none of your reasonings negate the overwhelming power of true scintific peer review. Many examples exist showing the quiet yet unstoppable power of truth over time contrary to previously established agression against it. That's why the Bible won't go away. As long as it is read there will be many who trust it due to the ring of truth it sounds in the hearts of many people.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

I would love to see some of this evidence.

Be more clear please. Evidence of what? That there isn't a Bible verse that states or implies that the earth is young?

The evidence for Ice Ages in the past, in particular the last one, are so convincing that no Creation Ministry I know of denies it.

I'm supposed to be stunned by your assertion? Give me something I can sink my teeth into. I could care less what any majority of any group say they believe. Show me the evidence. I retain deniability regardless of your unreasonable request that I comply based on supposed higher opinion on the basis that it's higher or more numerous than my own.

The problem is they have to shoe-horn it into their 6,000 year earth model.

There are approximately five million elephants partially buried in the Siberian permafrost...tusks and all. They are the so called wooly mammoths. They appear to have been caught in a ice storm and were frozen quickly. The most notable mammoth was found sitting on his hind end with his rear legs splayed out, a look of terror on it's face, the food he was chewing still in his mouth, with a penile erection do to the effect of dying of suffocation, his last meal still in his stomach, and was proven by commercial freezing methodalogy that he was frozen within a minute of time. Many of the elephants are and have been a source of meat for the Siberian natives scince the meat is still to this day fresh out of the freezer. Now what ice age produced this anomaly? Is it hard for you to grasp the possibility that the ice age you imagine ocurred was only the result of the freezing of flood waters in a winter world that was clouded over by extreme cloud cover due to the extensive onslaught of rain? Mt. Killamajaro is on it's last few years of having any snow left on top of it's peak. t
The political correctness crowd wants you to think that it's all melted due to global warming. But, once you understand the deluge ramifications you can begin to see that the truth is that the snows atop Mt. Killamajaro have been melting ever scince the flood occurred. There never was an ice age.

If you can't rap your mind around the fact that in the recent past most of North America was covered in glaciers, then that is your problem.

Insult me if as a loser you must to retain any semblance of intellectual superiority. I don't care scince it doesn't apply to me anyway, and it only belittles you. I'll not respond to insults from you again. But, I will respond to any real debate point that you make that is reasonable.
I know that there were glaciers and large ice fields in North America in recent times. But, they were of short duration and due to the effects of the cataclysmic deluge. The earth has been slowly recovering ever scince.

Joman.

 

[Joman]

I don't suppose you have studied the evidence, or even basic geology?

Such a remark as this is probably due to your constant desire to find an unfair advantage scince logic and facts evade you. I need no degree in geology to know when interpretation of geologic facts doesn't add up nor make sense.

Joman.

 

[Industriaan]

Such a remark as this is probably due to your constant desire to find an unfair advantage scince logic and facts evade you. I need no degree in geology to know when interpretation of geologic facts doesn't add up nor make sense.

Joman.

the degree is not neccesary, but a basic knowlegde would be usefull, and not the fantasies that realm in ur head.
And oh yeah u r the one evading facts

 

[Split Rock]

Be more clear please. Evidence of what? That there isn't a Bible verse that states or implies that the earth is young?

I was refering to this statment:

However, evidence exists that shows that the basement rock of the earth was formed rapidly no matter when it was first formed.

I'm supposed to be stunned by your assertion? Give me something I can sink my teeth into. I could care less what any majority of any group say they believe. Show me the evidence. I retain deniability regardless of your unreasonable request that I comply based on supposed higher opinion on the basis that it's higher or more numerous than my own.

My point was that the existance of the last Ice Age was unquestioned by either side of the debate.

There are approximately five million elephants partially buried in the Siberian permafrost...tusks and all. They are the so called wooly mammoths. They appear to have been caught in a ice storm and were frozen quickly. The most notable mammoth was found sitting on his hind end with his rear legs splayed out, a look of terror on it's face, the food he was chewing still in his mouth, with a penile erection do to the effect of dying of suffocation, his last meal still in his stomach, and was proven by commercial freezing methodalogy that he was frozen within a minute of time. Many of the elephants are and have been a source of meat for the Siberian natives scince the meat is still to this day fresh out of the freezer. Now what ice age produced this anomaly? Is it hard for you to grasp the possibility that the ice age you imagine ocurred was only the result of the freezing of flood waters in a winter world that was clouded over by extreme cloud cover due to the extensive onslaught of rain? Mt. Killamajaro is on it's last few years of having any snow left on top of it's peak. t

It is hard for me to grasp any of these conclusions without actual evidence, yes. Your conclusion that all these animals were frozen within a minute is incorrect. Do you have any references? In any case, I misunderstood you when you stated that Ice Ages were a "ridiculous" idea.

As far as Mt. Killamajaro is concerned, we know that average temperatures have been increasing along with the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It is also true that we are in essence still recovering from the last Ice Age, but the efffects of this have been exascerbated by out own activities. What does any of this have to do with the length of the last Ice Age?

The political correctness crowd wants you to think that it's all melted due to global warming. But, once you understand the deluge ramifications you can begin to see that the truth is that the snows atop Mt. Killamajaro have been melting ever scince the flood occurred. There never was an ice age.

Well, again, I misunderstood you when you said there wasn't an "Ice Age." You seem to be saying that it happened, but was a very quick event. Do you have any evidence or a physical mechanism that would cause the Deluge to be followed by a quick freezing that lasted, what? Only a few minutes? I do not think "extensive cloud cover" from raining would be sufficient, nor would such an event be so brief, if it did occur.

Insult me if as a loser you must to retain any semblance of intellectual superiority. I don't care scince it doesn't apply to me anyway, and it only belittles you. I'll not respond to insults from you again. But, I will respond to any real debate point that you make that is reasonable.

I did not mean to insult you, I was just responding to the condescending tone of your remarks, i.e., that an Ice Age in the past was "ridiculous."

I know that there were glaciers and large ice fields in North America in recent times. But, they were of short duration and due to the effects of the cataclysmic deluge. The earth has been slowly recovering ever scince.

Joman.

What evidence can you provide that it was over relatively quickly? We can actually measure the movement of glaciers today, and we know that they do not move quicly.

 

[Split Rock]

Such a remark as this is probably due to your constant desire to find an unfair advantage scince logic and facts evade you. I need no degree in geology to know when interpretation of geologic facts doesn't add up nor make sense.

Joman.

Trust me. You really do not understand me at all. I am not trying to gain an "unfair advantage." And yes, you do need to actually understand geology, if you are going to make statements about geology. How do you know that the evidence provided by modern geologists "doesn't add up," if you do not understand what they do? I suspect that you don't like their conclusions based on religious grounds, and therefore reject those conclusions out of hand. Is that close to the truth?

 

[Opethian]

Trust me. You really do not understand me at all. I am not trying to gain an "unfair advantage." And yes, you do need to actually understand geology, if you are going to make statements about geology. How do you know that the evidence provided by modern geologists "doesn't add up," if you do not understand what they do? I suspect that you don't like their conclusions based on religious grounds, and therefore reject those conclusions out of hand. Is that close to the truth?

It's probably very close to the truth, only he will never admit it...

 

[mark kennedy]

A split from the Scientific proof of flood thread.

What is evolution?

The change of alleles in populations over time.

Why is it a lie?

Because it assumes naturalistic causes and a single common ancestor model, which is absurd.

Why has it endured for so many years and helped science if it is a lie?

Because it has done a great job of measuring the change of alleles and projecting them over time. This is highly presuasive but hardly managable given the effects of changes on the level that would be necassary for single common ancesotry to be tenable as a scientific theory.

Great to see you again Arikay, I really missed seeing you on here.

Mark

 

[Tomk80]

Can't we just put this thread back to rest again? It was doing so peacefully. Have a little pity for this thread. Imagine that you were lying in your grave nice and quietly, and someone digs you out and starts arguing over you all over again. You wouldn't be happy than, would you? Neither is this thread. It was deceased, just let it die again.

 

[TheInstant]

Because it assumes naturalistic causes and a single common ancestor model, which is absurd.


Mark

If the Theory of Evolution is a lie because looks for explanations through naturalistic causes, doesn't that make all of science a lie?

Why do you refer to the single common ancestor model as an "assumption"?