"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved." [moved]

[SteveB28]

ASSUMING it didn't happen as documented, then Homer lied.

No, Homer told stories.

Just as the gospel writers did (whomever they might have been).

 

[AV1611VET]

No, Homer told stories.

No, Homer lied.

Didn't you say this?

And Homer presents the Odyssey as true. So what?

If it didn't happen as documented, then Homer lied.

 

[SteveB28]

No, Homer lied.

Didn't you say this?



If it didn't happen as documented, then Homer lied.

Or was mistaken. Just like the unknown gospel writers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or was mistaken.

Yes ... Homer could have been mistaken.

I haven't read his works, but from what little I know, I don't see why it couldn't have happened as documented.

 

[sfs]

Sfs, please explain a loaf of raisin bread created ex nihilo (since it contains aged grapes), and/or explain a bunch of bananas created ex nihilo (since they are man-made hybrids), using all that gobbledygook science.

My guess is: you can't, without accusing God of being deceptive.

You're missing the point of this discussion, AV. I'm granting you your special creation of Adam and Eve. Have God make them to order: genetically different, genetically identical, full of plump ex nihilo raisins -- any way you like. What I'm asking is, what then? What would human genetics look like then? Instead of treating Adam and Eve as a doctrine you have to believe or else, I'm treating it as real possibility, and asking what the world would look like if it were true. And it turns out not to look like this world.

Now, of course you always have the fallback possibility, that God not only made Adam and Eve, but also tinkered repeatedly with later human genetics to make it look exactly like humans have had a long history with a large population, a history that (coincidentally? by design?) matches up perfectly with the archeological and paleontological record of human prehistory. Or, for that matter, that human genetics actually does reflect a recent origin from Adam and Eve, but that God tinkers with our sequencing machines to fool us. Or that we actually do see the evidence for Adam and Eve, and that I'm describing it right now, but that God will tinker with my post before you read it. All of these possibilities strike me as equally plausible, and as plausible as your embedded age claim. They all come down to rejecting what we actually see because you somehow got the idea that Genesis has to be a literal, historically accurate description of actual events, and you think that doctrine is more important that the real world that God made. I'm reminded of the dwarves in C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, who refuse to see what's really in front of them because they have their own ideas about what's going on. They're given a sumptuous feast, but they can only see slop and garbage because they've convinced themselves that that's what must be there.

I think it's notable that professional creationists, including the trained scientists among them, also don't treat recent special creation as a real event. If they did, they would be able to use such a dramatically important fact, one that most of the scientific world has missed, to understand geology and biology in new and powerful ways, and to make all kinds of surprising predictions about data. But they don't do that at all. Mostly they just sit around and take potshots at conventional science. It makes me wonder whether they really believe creationism is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're missing the point of this discussion, AV. I'm granting you your special creation of Adam and Eve. Have God make them to order: genetically different, genetically identical, full of plump ex nihilo raisins -- any way you like. What I'm asking is, what then? What would human genetics look like then? Instead of treating Adam and Eve as a doctrine you have to believe or else, I'm treating it as real possibility, and asking what the world would look like if it were true. And it turns out not to look like this world.

Now, of course you always have the fallback possibility, that God not only made Adam and Eve, but also tinkered repeatedly with later human genetics to make it look exactly like humans have had a long history with a large population, a history that (coincidentally? by design?) matches up perfectly with the archeological and paleontological record of human prehistory. Or, for that matter, that human genetics actually does reflect a recent origin from Adam and Eve, but that God tinkers with our sequencing machines to fool us. Or that we actually do see the evidence for Adam and Eve, and that I'm describing it right now, but that God will tinker with my post before you read it. All of these possibilities strike me as equally plausible, and as plausible as your embedded age claim. They all come down to rejecting what we actually see because you somehow got the idea that Genesis has to be a literal, historically accurate description of actual events, and you think that doctrine is more important that the real world that God made. I'm reminded of the dwarves in C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle, who refuse to see what's really in front of them because they have their own ideas about what's going on. They're given a sumptuous feast, but they can only see slop and garbage because they've convinced themselves that that's what must be there.

I think it's notable that professional creationists, including the trained scientists among them, also don't treat recent special creation as a real event. If they did, they would be able to use such a dramatically important fact, one that most of the scientific world has missed, to understand geology and biology in new and powerful ways, and to make all kinds of surprising predictions about data. But they don't do that at all. Mostly they just sit around and take potshots at conventional science. It makes me wonder whether they really believe creationism is true.

I noticed in all this, you didn't mention the Fall.

How's come?

Instead, you want me to explain what you guys see in the genetic record today as if GOD DID IT.

Why is that?

That's like asking me why God made things to fall apart.

He didn't.

 

[USincognito]

Again like the other poster you don't know the difference between turned to stone and incased IN stone. And no pressure can not turn something from into stone, at best it would crush the animal, fossils is where the original creature has been completly replaced by stone and other material, not encased, not crushed. If you take fossilized seashells your going to get tests coming back saying they are some type of rock, not calcium carbonite.

Fantastic points and referring back to 57's claim about Everest, not only is a significant portion of the upper part metamorphic and could not have formed during the Flood, but there aren't any modern fossils found and the brachiopods and crinoids are fragmentary you know, as if they had been subjected to geological processes like uplift rather than settled intact.

 

[RickG]

Haven't you ever heard about the world wide flood? It's in the bible.

I certainly have and though I do not accept that it covered the entire earth fifteen cubits above the mountains I do believe the story is derived from an actual event involving global sea level rise, specifically the 8200 event well documented in the scientific literature.

Wouldn’t we expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were buried rapidly and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime? Of course, and that’s exactly what we find.

No, that is not what we would find, catastrophic floods leave everything totally mixed up (co-mingled) with no separation of anything. Conversely, with sedimentary petrology, we see exactly the opposite, that is order and structure.

Furthermore, even though the catastrophic geologic activity of the Flood would have waned in the immediate post-Flood period, ongoing mini-catastrophes would still have produced localized fossil deposits. rest of article

The problem with fossil deposits from a flood is that they would all be mixed up together, not distributed throughout the sedimentary strata exactly how evolution would predict it.

 

[RickG]

Refer yourself to the book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 regarding creation. If you're going to dismiss what it says and make the claim that God created man from another species using evolution, why are you even here then?

I'm not dismissing anything, I am asking you to describe the fossil record throughout the geologic column without evolution.

 

[RickG]

I can post a picture of a fossilized hat. Now I don't think it happened in a year. But it could of.

The hat is calcified, not fossilized. Calcification is nothing but a deposited layer, not fossilization which is the slow replacement of organic material by minerals. Also, ask the owner of said fossilized hat if he will let the scientific community to verify his find. He won't, in fact I believe he has even removed the picture from his website.

 

[RickG]

Who (or what) was Adam's mother?

Mama

 

[Jimmy D]

Mama

Mama from heaven?

 

[sfs]

I noticed in all this, you didn't mention the Fall.

How's come?

For the same reason I didn't mention the Boston Red Sox. Neither has anything to do with the question.

Instead, you want me to explain what you guys see in the genetic record today as if GOD DID IT.

Why is that?

Because I don't think you can do it, and if your belief were true than you should be able to do it.

That's like asking me why God made things to fall apart.

No, it's nothing like asking you why God made things to fall apart. It's asking you to treat your own belief as if it were true.

What don't you get here, AV? If God really made humans as a single pair within the last 10,000 years, something you fervently believe, then we should see certain things. We don't see those things. I'm asking you, or any other creationist, to explain why we don't see them. Embedded age does not explain why we don't see them. So what does?

 

[bhsmte]

He didn't ask you to find a doctor who did not accept evolution. He asked you if you asked your doctor. Why do Creationists have such a hard time answering a simple question?

I fully expected him to evade answering my simple question.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God really made humans as a single pair within the last 10,000 years, something you fervently believe, then we should see certain things. We don't see those things.

Science is myopic.

 

[Jimmy D]

Can anyone tell me why:

"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved."

 

[sfs]

Science is myopic.

A more useful response would be one that points out what it is that I'm missing in my myopia.

 

[RickG]

Can anyone tell me why:

"Life and its building blocks are way too complicated to have evolved."

All they ever do is make claims with zero evidence to back anything claimed.

 

[AV1611VET]

A more useful response would be one that points out what it is that I'm missing in my myopia.

God's intervention ... miracles ... catastrophism ... Genesis 9:1 ... short time ... the Bible ... the Fall ... faith ...

... to name a few.

 

[RickG]

God's intervention ... miracles ... catastrophism ... Genesis 9:1 ... short time ... the Bible ... the Fall ... faith ...

... to name a few.

Catastrophism is a "creation science" invention.