How to choose between creation and evolution.

[tas8831]

This is why I keep referring to your terminology and charts as scientific speculation.

No, you refer to science as speculation because it feeds you sad ego and you need that Dunning-Kruger boost so as not to implode for being so gullible as to believe ancient middle eastern tall tales.

 

[tas8831]

Of course, the process is not observable… more speculation.

Was the process of transforming silicates into biologically-necessary organic molecules via tribal deity magic tall tales observable?

 

[AV1611VET]

No I dont,

Then your statement doesn't make any sense; unless you don't believe in magic either.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then your statement doesn't make any sense; unless you don't believe in magic either.

I deny everything metaphysical.

 

[inquiring mind]

Are you serious? The evidence tells us what happened.

I said "the interpretation of evidence."

Dishonesty would require (2) on your list of flood arguments.

This makes no sense as written.

God isn't dishonest... it's just lack of understanding on our part, and where did He say He would explain everything in detail to us? That's as clear as I can make it.

Here is a simple question: Will God lie? I say that if exists he won't.

No, He will not, but don't equate our lack of understanding with Him lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said "the interpretation of evidence."

when the evidence is overwhelming no interpretation is needed.

God isn't dishonest... it's just lack of understanding on our part, and where did He say He would explain everything in detail to us? That's as clear as I can make it.

if you are going to play this game then you have to admit that he never said or even implied that the Bible is literally true.

No, He will not, but don't equate our lack of understanding with Him lying.

Eventually the evidence gets so strong that that is the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[inquiring mind]

So, your fake flood happened right in the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, and dang it, they didn't seem to notice.

Septuagint chronology puts the flood at about 3300 BC, which is 600 years before Egypt's Old Kingdom.

 

[Jimmy D]

Septuagint chronology puts the flood at about 3300 BC, which is 600 years before Egypt's Old Kingdom.

It sounds even less convincing when you put it like that, how could the population and distinct culture of Egypt develop from scratch in 600 years. Plus wiping out the entire population in a flood is a harsh lesson for mankind, yet they seem to have forgotten about the hebrew god pretty quickly!

It's a ridiculous proposition.

 

[inquiring mind]

It sounds even less convincing when you put it like that, how could the population and distinct culture of Egypt develop from scratch in 600 years.

I don't know Jimmy, but Americans have done a pretty good job of it in half the time.

Plus wiping out the entire population in a flood is a harsh lesson for mankind, yet they seem to have forgotten about the hebrew god pretty quickly!

There again, I don't know... there has to be an explanation. Good point though.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't know Jimmy, but Americans have done a pretty good job of it in half the time.

From a population of eight? I don't think so. I thought that you were extolling the virtues of "logic" and "evidence", I suppose if you applied those to the flood story the whole thing would come tumbling down like a house of cards.

There again, I don't know... there has to be an explanation. Good point though.

There is a great explanation..... There was no worldwide flood 5500 years ago. Call it allegory, a lesson, an exaggeration of local events, but there was no worldwide flood wiping out life on Earth (except for a boatful of course).

 

[inquiring mind]

From a population of eight? I don't think so. I thought that you were extolling the virtues of "logic" and "evidence", I suppose if you applied those to the flood story the whole thing would come tumbling down like a house of cards.

A few more than eight... but it began with just one boatload.

There is a great explanation..... There was no worldwide flood 5500 years ago. Call it allegory, a lesson, an exaggeration of local events, but there was no worldwide flood wiping out life on Earth (except for a boatful of course).

I see a lot of evidence listed against it, but I also see a lot of evidence listed for it.

 

[VirOptimus]

A few more than eight... but it began with just one boatload.


I see a lot of evidence listed against it, but I also see a lot of evidence listed for it.

There is zero data, evidence or anything else supporting a world wide flood.

 

[inquiring mind]

There is zero data, evidence or anything else supporting a world wide flood.

I don't know how you can say that? Just google 'evidence of a worldwide flood.' There are numerous 'for & against' articles.

 

[AV1611VET]

... yet they seem to have forgotten about the hebrew god pretty quickly!

I take it you're not familiar with the story of the golden calf?

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't know how you can say that? Just google 'evidence of a worldwide flood.' There are numerous 'for & against' articles.

I say it because its true.

The "for and against" are all just creationist propaganda.

Present what you think is the best evidence for.

 

[AV1611VET]

From a population of eight?

Genesis 1 only had a population of two.

Little is much when God is behind it.

 

[VirOptimus]

Genesis 1 only had a population of two.

Little is much when God is behind it.

Or is just a myth.

There has never been a populataion of just two, the genetics prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Present what you think is the best evidence for.

White cliffs and meandering rivers.

 

[VirOptimus]

White cliffs and meandering rivers.

Yes... thats someting alright, but it in no way supports a worldwide flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or is just a myth.

You're the one mything the point then.

There has never been a populataion of just two, the genetics prove it.

Genetics can take a hike.

How did Jacob get his flock?

Hint: It certainly wasn't by genetics.