Thin layer of silt proves flood

[pitabread]

One thing you fail to take into account is that most of us have been having these discussions with creationists for some time. We have read the books carefully (Whtcomb & Morris, Walter Brown, Gentry, Gish, etc.) and studied the websites (ICR, AiG, CRI, etc.). No, we are not just saying that these sources must be flawed because they are "Christian." We are familiar width these sources and know they are flawed because they are flawed. They are riddled with logical fallacies, bad data and false claims about evolutionary theory.

I'll echo this. I've read numerous creationist books over the years, watched all the videos, gone through countless articles, etc.

I find that non-creationists in these discussions are often more familiar with creationist materials than a lot of creationists.

 

[Speedwell]

Some Christians believe in evolution. Obviously I'm not one of them. I've yet to meet an atheist who believes in Creationism. The majority of the many atheists I've had discussions with use evolution as their answer to where everyone and everything originated. The only other views I've come across are things such as life originating from outer space or alternative universes. I'll buy lunch for the first atheist I talk to that believes in creationism. I am not putting any money aside for that day.

Why should an atheist believe in creationism? The only reason anyone believes is creationism is to preserve the notion that the creation stories in Genesis need to be literal history. Not even all Christians need that.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why should an atheist believe in creationism? The only reason anyone believes is creationism is to preserve the notion that the creation stories in Genesis need to be literal history. Not even all Christians need that.

I was responding to the "vice-versa' in Pitabread's reply to me. It's late, I'm tired and my sarcasm gland is firing up.

 

[pitabread]

I was responding to the "vice-versa' in Pitabread's reply to me. It's late, I'm tired and my sarcasm gland is firing up.

For clarification, the "vise-versa" was to indicate that Christianity is not synonymous with creationism.

Not all Christians are creationists and not all creationists are Christians.

 

[KCfromNC]

Solves a lot more problems than it creates tho. Net progress!

Except then you're left with a god who intentionally deceives the people who believe in it.

 

[durangodawood]

Except then you're left with a god who intentionally deceives the people who believe in it.

Maybe there was some functional, non-deceptive, reason why the effects of the great flood had to be removed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

To preserve a precious personal commitment to a literal reading of every event described in the Bible.

Bad theology. A literal reading of Genesis claims that God is incompetent and a liar. If God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.

 

[durangodawood]

Bad theology. A literal reading of Genesis claims that God is incompetent and a liar. If God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be read literally.

Well I'm glad I dont feel compelled to reconcile all the contradictions and immorality on display there. I was just thinking of the poor people who do.

 

[Kylie]

"No not the flood itself. The "its a miracle" explanation for the total lack of evidence for the flood." Typical comment that is not only unsubstantiated but flies in the face of evidence. I refer to a book that was written by someone with the ideal education and real world experience to describe how the flood could have and probably did happen. It's a good thing that the author has passed away because the response was libellous.

Atheists generally, and I mean no disrespect to you personally, are just a pain in the nether regions to deal with. If the source is Christian it must be flawed. This is how the USSR suppressed Christians. They decided that Christianity was insanity. Anyone who refused to bow to the Communist regime was imprisoned, tortured, exiled and some were murdered.

I have an low tolerance level of tolerance for this kind of response. Typical: I make a statement. Response: Where is the evidence? Me: go find it yourself. Them: blah blah you don't know really.

I make a statement. Response: you know nothing. Me: I was taught the subject and I reject the proposition. Them: there is much information available, obviously you know nothing, why don't you look it up?

I get really annoyed when people make personal attacks on people they do not know on a completely flawed premise. The only reason I respond to atheists is maybe to offer a different point of view so that others may not accept atheist claims without at least knowing that their opinion is not the only one and that they are not necessarily correct.

All I'm saying is that if you make a claim, then you need to provide evidence to support that claim. If you provide the evidence and the evidence is valid, then I will believe.

If I told you I once performed in the Eurovision Song Contest and won, and you asked me for proof, and then I said, "Go find it yourself," would you believe me? Probably not. But if I presented you with newspaper articles - "Kylie wins Eurovision!" - You'd say, huh, I guess she was telling the truth.

It's called the burden of proof. If a person makes a claim, then they must support that claim. If you claim that there was a great worldwide flood, but any time someone asked for proof, you just told them to go and find it themselves, then very few people will believe your claim. But if you can provide the proof yourself, and let that evidence be examined and it withstands that scrutiny, then you will find your position a lot more convincing.

 

[Aussie Pete]

All I'm saying is that if you make a claim, then you need to provide evidence to support that claim. If you provide the evidence and the evidence is valid, then I will believe.

If I told you I once performed in the Eurovision Song Contest and won, and you asked me for proof, and then I said, "Go find it yourself," would you believe me? Probably not. But if I presented you with newspaper articles - "Kylie wins Eurovision!" - You'd say, huh, I guess she was telling the truth.

It's called the burden of proof. If a person makes a claim, then they must support that claim. If you claim that there was a great worldwide flood, but any time someone asked for proof, you just told them to go and find it themselves, then very few people will believe your claim. But if you can provide the proof yourself, and let that evidence be examined and it withstands that scrutiny, then you will find your position a lot more convincing.

Sure. I just get tired of the same old same old. I can predict the pattern quite accurately these days. I know that nothing I can say, no evidence I provide, no proof, no personal testimony, no testimony from others, not the best researched articles - nothing - can convince an atheist that there might even be room for a glimmer of doubt. It does not bother me that much. I am no different except from the opposite angle. I do get annoyed at times. It's usually when the response turns into an ad hominem attack on the source I quote. At the same time, the facts are ignored. So I quote a genetic researcher who shows clearly why evolution is implausible. I get the response "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing". James Tour is one of the leading experts in synthetic chemistry. He destroys the arguments for spontaneous origin of life. When I referred someone to his presentations, the response was "What would he know?" Why? He's not a biologist. And yet OOL depends entirely on pre-biology. It is absolutely synthetic chemistry - if you rule out the Creator.

I won't trouble you with more examples. I should have made my OP more clear. It was addressed to theistic evolutionists. I will post something directed to non-theists in the next few days. Lockdown has at least one advantage!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure. I just get tired of the same old same old. I can predict the pattern quite accurately these days. I know that nothing I can say, no evidence I provide, no proof, no personal testimony, no testimony from others, not the best researched articles - nothing - can convince an atheist that there might even be room for a glimmer of doubt. It does not bother me that much. I am no different except from the opposite angle. I do get annoyed at times. It's usually when the response turns into an ad hominem attack on the source I quote. At the same time, the facts are ignored. So I quote a genetic researcher who shows clearly why evolution is implausible. I get the response "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing". James Tour is one of the leading experts in synthetic chemistry. He destroys the arguments for spontaneous origin of life. When I referred someone to his presentations, the response was "What would he know?" Why? He's not a biologist. And yet OOL depends entirely on pre-biology. It is absolutely synthetic chemistry - if you rule out the Creator.

I won't trouble you with more examples. I should have made my OP more clear. It was addressed to theistic evolutionists. I will post something directed to non-theists in the next few days. Lockdown has at least one advantage!

One problem is that when it comes to the sciences you do not understand the concept of evidence. That is why what you claim is so quickly rejected. It is simply not evidence. The concept is well defined and easy to understand.

This is why I offer to discuss the concept of evidence with you. Instead you falsely claim "ad hominem". Valid criticisms are not ad hominems.

As to James Tour, he lied so badly in the video that you are probably referring to he actually did a false apology to one of the people that he attacked. It does not matter what "authorities" that you site if they cannot support their claims in the peer reviewed literature. Yes, Tour is an accomplished chemist. Where are his peer reviewed articles refuting abiogenesis? If you cannot find any then it is almost certainly because his arguments fail when other experts examine them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

One problem is that when it comes to the sciences you do not understand the concept of evidence. That is why what you claim is so quickly rejected. It is simply not evidence. The concept is well defined and easy to understand.

This is why I offer to discuss the concept of evidence with you. Instead you falsely claim "ad hominem". Valid criticisms are not ad hominems.

As to James Tour, he lied so badly in the video that you are probably referring to he actually did a false apology to one of the people that he attacked. It does not matter what "authorities" that you site if they cannot support their claims in the peer reviewed literature. Yes, Tour is an accomplished chemist. Where are his peer reviewed articles refuting abiogenesis? If you cannot find any then it is almost certainly because his arguments fail when other experts examine them.

A typical response that demonstrates my point exactly. No one has refuted his claims. He could find no one even to debate him until just recently. Yes, he gets heated - I can sure understand that. False apology? What is that supposed to mean? I've read his apology. I saw nothing false about it.

How about telling me where his objections to abiogenesis from an evolution point of view are wrong? How about explaining how inanimate matter in a hostile environment can transform into living cells? How about explaining how 60 years of research has produced zero progress towards anything resembling life? The only answer I've seen from OOL people (and many other branches of science) is that there is no Creator so evolution must be true. And you complain to me about evidence!

 

[Speedwell]

It is absolutely synthetic chemistry - if you rule out the Creator.

It's also synthetic chemistry if you rule the creator in. One of the things which baffles me about creationists is the way they cling to the notion that if an event has a natural cause it cannot also have a divine cause. It's really a rejection of basic metaphysics which goes all the way back to Aristotle and is the basis for Christian formal theology. Perhaps something to do with the Reformation; it is clear that it is Protestants who have most of the trouble with modern science, as opposed to Traditional Christians.

 

[Kylie]

Sure. I just get tired of the same old same old. I can predict the pattern quite accurately these days. I know that nothing I can say, no evidence I provide, no proof, no personal testimony, no testimony from others, not the best researched articles - nothing - can convince an atheist that there might even be room for a glimmer of doubt. It does not bother me that much. I am no different except from the opposite angle. I do get annoyed at times. It's usually when the response turns into an ad hominem attack on the source I quote. At the same time, the facts are ignored. So I quote a genetic researcher who shows clearly why evolution is implausible. I get the response "He's a wolf in sheep's clothing". James Tour is one of the leading experts in synthetic chemistry. He destroys the arguments for spontaneous origin of life. When I referred someone to his presentations, the response was "What would he know?" Why? He's not a biologist. And yet OOL depends entirely on pre-biology. It is absolutely synthetic chemistry - if you rule out the Creator.

I won't trouble you with more examples. I should have made my OP more clear. It was addressed to theistic evolutionists. I will post something directed to non-theists in the next few days. Lockdown has at least one advantage!

Have you considered WHY they discount your evidence? Do you know why personal testimony isn't a good line of evidence? Do you know why atheists discount it when people offer as proof of God the claim, "But I've felt him in my heart"?

I can assure you - if you provide some evidence that I can test and see for myself, I will do so (if I haven't already). And if it gets the result you claim, I will adjust my views. Remember, most atheists aren't interested in trying to disprove God, they are just seeking the truth, and atheism/lack of God is the truth they have concluded based on their investigations. If you can show that their beliefs are incorrect with valid and testable evidence, then the vast majority of atheists will be happy to re-evaluate their views.

 

[Kylie]

A typical response that demonstrates my point exactly. No one has refuted his claims. He could find no one even to debate him until just recently. Yes, he gets heated - I can sure understand that. False apology? What is that supposed to mean? I've read his apology. I saw nothing false about it.

A debate isn't exactly peer reviewed literature though.

How about telling me where his objections to abiogenesis from an evolution point of view are wrong? How about explaining how inanimate matter in a hostile environment can transform into living cells? How about explaining how 60 years of research has produced zero progress towards anything resembling life? The only answer I've seen from OOL people (and many other branches of science) is that there is no Creator so evolution must be true. And you complain to me about evidence!

All matter needs to start the development of life is imperfect replication, and this could easily be satisfied by an enzyme.

Basically, an enzyme is a chemical that helps a chemical reaction but isn't used up in that reaction. It could be a molecule that can grab two other molecule and join them together. The enzyme is usually named something-ase, based on what it does. So Lactase is an enzyme that works on Lactose.

So, if we have an enzyme that takes molecule A and joins it to Molecule B to make Molecule C, we might called this enzyme Abcase. So we have lots of Abcase molecules floating around, grabbing an A and joining to a B to make a C.

Now, what happens if Molecule C is Abcase itself? We've got Abcase molecules floating around making more of themselves! That's reproduction.

And let's say some of these abcase molecules have a tiny change in the way they are put together which makes them better at joining A to B. Then this is a reproductive advantage, and this variation of Abcase is going to spread throughout the population. That's natural selection. That's evolution. And we haven't even got to cells yet.

And the Urey-Miller experiment counts as an example of an experiment that is progress in the formation of life. It shows how easily organic molecules that are the basis for life can be formed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A typical response that demonstrates my point exactly. No one has refuted his claims. He could find no one even to debate him until just recently. Yes, he gets heated - I can sure understand that. False apology? What is that supposed to mean? I've read his apology. I saw nothing false about it.

How about telling me where his objections to abiogenesis from an evolution point of view are wrong? How about explaining how inanimate matter in a hostile environment can transform into living cells? How about explaining how 60 years of research has produced zero progress towards anything resembling life? The only answer I've seen from OOL people (and many other branches of science) is that there is no Creator so evolution must be true. And you complain to me about evidence!

Of course they have. But I doubt if you could understand them. But at least you admitted the he lied. Why would he even have to make a false apology if he was not dishonest?

And until you learn the basics of science there is no point in showing you how he is wrong. But just because I am a nice guy I will give you a video that points out the lies in his video:

If you have any questions about it I will answer them. Now are you ready to learn what scientific evidence is? It is very hard to present any scientific evidence when one does not understand the concept.

And where on Earth did you get the crazy idea that no progress has been made in 60 years in the science of abiogenesis?

Lastly since evolution does not depend on abiognesis you have just attempted a massive movement of the goalposts. That is the same as admitting that you were wrong about evolution. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Of course they have. But I doubt if you could understand them. But at least you admitted the he lied. Why would he even have to make a false apology if he was not dishonest?

And until you learn the basics of science there is no point in showing you how he is wrong. But just because I am a nice guy I will give you a video that points out the lies in his video:

If you have any questions about it I will answer them. Now are you ready to learn what scientific evidence is? It is very hard to present any scientific evidence when one does not understand the concept.

And where on Earth did you get the crazy idea that no progress has been made in 60 years in the science of abiogenesis?

Lastly since evolution does not depend on abiognesis you have just attempted a massive movement of the goalposts. That is the same as admitting that you were wrong about evolution. Are you sure that you want to do that?

I disagree with your premise that evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. If you are referring to adaptation within species, that is not evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree with your premise that evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. If you are referring to adaptation within species, that is not evolution.

Then you do not understand evolution.

Evolution tells us how life developed after it came into existence. It says nothing at all about how it came into existence.

 

[Speedwell]

I disagree with your premise that evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. If you are referring to adaptation within species, that is not evolution.

Why not? Are you proposing that adaptation within species proceeds by a different mechanism than speciation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Biological evolution is the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms. Adaptation is a key evolutionary process in which variation in the fitness of traits and species are adjusted by natural selection to become better suited for survival in specific ecological habitats. The environment acts to promote evolution through changes in development. Therefore, determining how developmental changes are mediated is critical for understanding the mechanisms of evolution."

Biological Evolution - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

Evolution - Wikipedia

"The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."

An introduction to evolution

Three sources, nothing about abiogenesis being part of evolution in any of them. I could find more.