Question for disccusion

[Ophiolite]

The only way to support a literal worldwide flood is to believe in a form of Last Thursdayism, where not only was every geological record of such an event completely erased, but billions of years of geologic history that never actually happened were planted as a deliberate deception.

Indeed. The literalists seem completely unaware of the huge volume of research that contradicts the idea of a global flood. Two centuries of detailed work in geomorphology, sedimentology, stratigraphy, palaeontology, geochemistry and the like. It would take at least a lifetime to properly study and digest all the work that has been done on deltas. And that would leave untouched equally diverse research on each of these: beach formation/deposits, deep sea sediments, lacustrine environments, glaciation, desert sedimentology, weathering processes, transport mechanisms, carbonate formation, evaporite deposits, et cetera, et cetera! It takes an act of great stubborness to ignore such material.

Doubting the global flood allowed the development of modern geology. This has been invaluable to the development of our resources and saved many lives with a better understanding of the Earth.

And on top of that, geology is just great fun!

 

[pitabread]

Funny, lots of reputable scientists disagree.

The real test is in application. Creationist flood geology isn't used by anyone. If it was really superior (or even equal) to conventional geology with backing from reputable scientists, then why don't industries like oil&gas, mining, etc, use it?

Glenn Morton's testimony about leaving YE creationism makes an emphatic point about the disconnect between creationist geology and the real world:

Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.​

Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

 

[Speedwell]

How do they harm humanity by saying that all men are created by God and are equal in His sight?

By attempting to impose the teaching of biblical creationism instead of science in the public schools and requiring Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study to go with it. As to "equal in His sight," the Southern Baptist Convention, still the largest Protestant denomination in the US and resolutely creationist, was founded on the principle that the literal and inerrant Bible justified slavery.

People were extracting and processing oil long before atheistic evolution became the predominate philosophy.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with finding oil.

They were also finding gold, silver, precious stones, coal, tin, copper and iron, all the while believing in God the Creator.

And the easy-to-get-to stuff has all been found. No working geologists use creationist flood models. Believing or disbelieving in a in a creator God has nothing to do with it.

 

[eleos1954]

That is an interesting reaction; that you choose mockery. It seems you feel it is fine, perhaps even noble, for you to have an intense belief in God and your interpretation of his teachings, but it makes you uncomfortable when someone displays a similar passion about knowledge and the search for knowledge. And so you respond with a remark more fitting from non-plussed teenager.
Feel free to disagree with me, but have the integrity to do so with reason, argument and evidence, not trite remarks that demean the giver more than the receiver.

I find the teachings of many religions to be interesting. The implied threat in your comment is, unfortunately, a common response from Bible literalists when their beliefs are challenged. I think you may find the Bible has something to say about that kind of behaviour also. Something for you reflect on.

That is interesting. Something has to have value to you or humanity for it to be believed? Is that what you mean. If evolutionary theory is "true" is that not of value itself? What is good about believing an untruth?

Evolutionary theory was not developed to mock God, or to disprove God, but to better discern the character of life. Many of those who contributed to the development of that theory were and are practicing, devout Christians. For them, learning more about evolution is one way they can celebrate the majesty of their God and of his Works. Revealing aspects of that majesty, it seems, are of great value to them personally and to those who accept the facts they reveal. You can benefit from that also. Just open your mind and your heart.

Christians I know, who not only accept, but relish evolutionary theory, do so because it tells them more about the wonderful interlocked relationships within the biosphere; shows the elegance of the Hand of God; and expands upon the beautiful metaphor of Creation expressed in Genesis. It has done them a great deal of good.

I have a compulsion to educate. (Others must decide if that is healthy or unhealthy.) I rail against ignorance, but I abhor wilfull ignorance. Rejecting evolutionary theory on the spurious grounds that there is no meaningful evidence is ignorant. Refusing to seriously examine the evidence is willfully ignorant.

well the basic bottom line is this ....

macro-evolution and creation are mutually exclusive .... people believe what they want to believe ... nobody has all the knowledge of the various theories, studies, experiments etc. that have been put forth by scientists regarding macro-evolution. So people base there belief on what they have read ... not on all the "facts" that are available to read .... so all are ignorant to the level they have looked into things (including yourself) ... and don't think that christians don't check out various theories put forth ... we do.

Like I said science is important and benefits mankind greatly and am thankful for it and do follow areas of interest to me such as astro physics. However, personally I do not believe in macro-evolution ... others do ... ok.

People make choices .... majority choose either macro-evolution or creation (excluding some other "unique" beliefs) in regard to "the beginning of all things" ... it's not a right or wrong issue .... it is a totally unknown issue, the universe is too vast .... NOBODY has all the "facts" ... and people decide what they want to believe. Not everything to be known can be known.

belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

some accept the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) ... some accept supernatural/intelligent design (creation) ... each decide what they put their confidence in.

You don't seem to like the use of the word theory .... however that is the word science often uses ... and yes ... I understand the "concepts" and terms ... science still calls it the theory of evolution, therefore so do I ... they don't call it the facts of evolution.

theory
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Feel free to disagree with me, but have the integrity to do so with reason, argument and evidence, not trite remarks that demean the giver more than the receiver.

ok .... I disagree with you .... I choose to believe in the creator God and it's not based just on the bible .... but on actual scientific evidence put forth by many scientists that support creation, they study it, test it scientifically in depth as well. Many renowned scientists past and present that support/supported creation.

Now ... do I want to pit creation scientists against non-creation scientists? No .... that's futile ... the scientific community as a whole argues/debates within themselves their findings/theories ... analyzation of data, interpretation of data, testing methods etc.

The rest of us look into these things to whatever degree we have interest in ... and choose a belief (probably better described as an opinion) .... not based on all the "facts" (not one person knows everything).

so you are good with your beliefs .... and I'm good with mine

Agree to disagree

 

[Speedwell]

well the basic bottom line is this ....

macro-evolution and creation are mutually exclusive .... people believe what they want to believe ... nobody has all the knowledge of the various theories, studies, experiments etc. that have been put forth by scientists regarding macro-evolution. So people base there belief on what they have read ... not on all the "facts" that are available to read .... so all are ignorant to the level they have looked into things (including yourself) ... and don't think that christians don't check out various theories put forth ... we do.

Like I said science is important and benefits mankind greatly and am thankful for it and do follow areas of interest to me such as astro physics. However, personally I do not believe in macro-evolution ... others do ... ok.

People make choices .... majority choose either macro-evolution or creation (excluding some other "unique" beliefs) in regard to "the beginning of all things" ... it's not a right or wrong issue .... it is a totally unknown issue, the universe is too vast .... NOBODY has all the "facts" ... and people decide what they want to believe. Not everything to be known can be known.

belief - an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something

some accept the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) ... some accept supernatural/intelligent design (creation) ... each decide what they put their confidence in.

You don't seem to like the use of the word theory .... however that is the word science often uses ... and yes ... I understand the "concepts" and terms ... science still calls it the theory of evolution, therefore so do I ... they don't call it the facts of evolution.

theory
noun
noun: theory; plural noun: theories

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

1. A more accurate definition of "theory" as the term is used by scientists is,

Theory: A coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.

2. "Evolution" is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact that life has changed and diversified over time, that new species have formed since life began. That is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain that fact.

3. This discussion is not about evolution in any case; it's about geology.

 

[Broken Fence]

first, can you answer the survey below and then you can comment on your opinion

Microsoft Forms

The question is:
When God created the earth, did he create cliffs or did they just erode over time?
I would love to hear some opinions and as many answers to the survey as possible

Well they say Job is the earliest Bible book written. Job 30:6 talks about a cliff so yes God created cliffs. Kjv says "To dwell in the cliffs of the valleys, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well they say Job is the earliest Bible book written. Job 30:6 talks about a cliff so yes God created cliffs.

That is a non sequitur.

 

[pitabread]

macro-evolution and creation are mutually exclusive

Not really. If God had created the original life form on Earth that all life diversified from, then they would clearly not be mutually exclusive.

Besides, even young-Earth creationists actually depend on massive levels of macro-evolutionary events in a short time to explain the diversity of modern species, since they are working from an extremely limited gene pools re: Noah's Ark.

 

[Broken Fence]

That is a non sequitur.

Huh that went over my head?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh that went over my head?

Your claim was not logical. It made no sense at all. Do you think that Job was a real person? Do you not realize that a literal interpretation of Job paints God as unloving and evil?

 

[eleos1954]

Not really. If God had created the original life form on Earth that all life diversified from, then they would clearly not be mutually exclusive.

Besides, even young-Earth creationists actually depend on massive levels of macro-evolutionary events in a short time to explain the diversity of modern species, since they are working from an extremely limited gene pools re: Noah's Ark.

The creation account in the bible does not support macro-evolution ... if one goes by the creation account in the bible .... macro-evolution and creation is indeed mutually exclusive, biblically.

people believe many different things ... no doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The creation account in the bible does not support macro-evolution ... if one goes by the creation account in the bible .... macro-evolution and creation is indeed mutually exclusive, biblically.

people believe many different things ... no doubt.

So what? It appears that you are claiming that the Bible is wrong. I think we can agree on that point.

 

[pitabread]

The creation account in the bible does not support macro-evolution ... if one goes by the creation account in the bible .... macro-evolution and creation is indeed mutually exclusive, biblically.

That entirely depends on one's interpretation of the Bible. Creationists do not have a provisional authority over Biblical interpretation. And nowhere in the Bible is there anything claiming that macro-evolution levels of evolution cannot occur.

Even young-Earth creationists require macro-evolutionary events to explain modern diversity of species (though they won't admit it). Young-Earth creationists are probably the biggest evolutionists around.

 

[eleos1954]

That entirely depends on one's interpretation of the Bible. Creationists do not have a provisional authority over Biblical interpretation. And nowhere in the Bible is there anything claiming that macro-evolution levels of evolution cannot occur.

Even young-Earth creationists require macro-evolutionary events to explain modern diversity of species (though they won't admit it). Young-Earth creationists are probably the biggest evolutionists around.

When we look carefully at Genesis 1, in Hebrew or even in English, it is clear that God created everything in six literal (24-hour) days. First, we are told that He created the earth in darkness and then created light. Then He called the light “day” and He called the darkness “night.” And then He said (in the original Hebrew) “and [there] was evening and [there] was morning, one day.” He repeated the same statement at the end of the second day through the sixth day.

SO THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE SIXTH DAY.

Everywhere else in the Old Testament, when the Hebrew word for “day” (יוםֹ, yom) appears with “evening” or “morning” or is modified by a number (e.g., “sixth day” or “five days”), it always means a 24-hour day.

On Day Four God further showed that these were literal days by telling us the purpose for which He created the sun, moon, and stars—so we could tell time: literal years, literal seasons, and literal days.

 

[pitabread]

When we look carefully at Genesis 1, in Hebrew or even in English, it is clear that God created everything in six literal (24-hour) days.

Even if one takes that interpretation, it still doesn't prevent macro-evolution levels of evolution from occurring subsequent to creation. As I said, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits macro-evolution from occurring. You can look, but you won't find it.

And Young-Earth creationists require macro-evolution to explain modern diversity of species following Noah's flood.

 

[eleos1954]

Even if one takes that interpretation, it still doesn't prevent macro-evolution levels of evolution from occurring subsequent to creation. As I said, there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits macro-evolution from occurring. You can look, but you won't find it.

And Young-Earth creationists require macro-evolution to explain modern diversity of species following Noah's flood.

Genesis 1:24

Berean Study Bible
And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, land crawlers, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

The Bible allows for change or variations within plants and animals. Scripture, however, limits the amount of change which can happen. Cats cannot mate with dogs, pigs with apes, etc. This limitation is exactly what we find in our world.

 

[pitabread]

The Bible allows for change or variations within plants and animals. Scripture, however, limits the amount of change which can happen.

There is nothing in the Bible about limiting the amount of evolutionary change in species, including the evolution of new species and subsequent evolution thereof.

Such claims of limitations are not supported in the Bible.

Cats cannot mate with dogs, pigs with apes, etc. This limitation is exactly what we find in our world.

That's not a limit to the amount of evolutionary change that could occur in populations. Evolution doesn't work by having cats and dogs mate with each other.

Rather, evolution deals with change and diversification of species along lineages of populations over time. There is nothing in the Bible that puts a limit on the amount of evolutionary change that could occur in that respect.

Any such claims by creationists are extra-Biblical views and not supported by the Bible. In effect, creationists trying to make those claims are trying to add to the Biblical account.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When we look carefully at Genesis 1, in Hebrew or even in English, it is clear that God created everything in six literal (24-hour) days. First, we are told that He created the earth in darkness and then created light. Then He called the light “day” and He called the darkness “night.” And then He said (in the original Hebrew) “and [there] was evening and [there] was morning, one day.” He repeated the same statement at the end of the second day through the sixth day.

SO THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE SIXTH DAY.

Everywhere else in the Old Testament, when the Hebrew word for “day” (יוםֹ, yom) appears with “evening” or “morning” or is modified by a number (e.g., “sixth day” or “five days”), it always means a 24-hour day.

On Day Four God further showed that these were literal days by telling us the purpose for which He created the sun, moon, and stars—so we could tell time: literal years, literal seasons, and literal days.

And since we know that is not what happened what does that tell us?

 

[eleos1954]

There is nothing in the Bible about limiting the amount of evolutionary change in species, including the evolution of new species and subsequent evolution thereof.

Such claims of limitations are not supported in the Bible.



That's not a limit to the amount of evolutionary change that could occur in populations. Evolution doesn't work by having cats and dogs mate with each other.

Rather, evolution deals with change and diversification of species along lineages of populations over time. There is nothing in the Bible that puts a limit on the amount of evolutionary change that could occur in that respect.

Any such claims by creationists are extra-Biblical views and not supported by the Bible. In effect, creationists trying to make those claims are trying to add to the Biblical account.

Yeah well ... I agree to disagree ;o)

 

[pitabread]

Yeah well ... I agree to disagree ;o)

We can agree to disagree, but you still won't find any claims of evolutionary limits in the Bible. It's simply not Biblical.