Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[Split Rock]

Do you believe that? if not, mind if I don't, either?

Hey, it was just an idea

 

[verysincere]

I've asked these guys more than twice what the [natural] retaining walls were, if the Flood was local, not global ... and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Take a trip to see the Dead Sea in Israel. There is no exit or drain on the Dead Sea other than evaporation. It is over 300 square miles in size but nevertheless is considered "local". As with Noah's flood, this body of water covers an entire ERETZ--- that is, "land" or "region" to borrow some of the King James Bible's renderings of the word ERETZ---and yet there are no "retaining walls" surrounding it. Why should there be? Walls are not what keeps water in place! Gravity and land forms that are HIGHER than the surface of the waters is the only "retaining wall" that is needed.

AV, the reason you keep "waiting for an answer" is that you keep covering your eyes and ears by refusing to LEARN.

So if a regional flood is "impossible" because of the lack of "retaining walls", then the Dead Sea should be impossible!

But what is really strange is that at any other time the Young Earth Creationists would say, "We don't need a scientific explanation for something which God chooses to do!" and "God doesn't need retaining walls to keep flood waters in place! If God wishes to flood my living room table, he could create flood waters there in an instant and hold those waters in place through just the power of his word!" So isn't it strange that Young Earth Creationists can come up with a miraculous explanation for anything they want---but when someone else suggests that God did something in a particular way, they start citing NATURAL EXPLANATIONS LIKE "RETAINING WALLS"!

Now is THAT hysterically funny or what! (AV, you are always good for a chuckle.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Walls are not what keeps water in place! Gravity and land forms that are HIGHER than the surface of the waters is the only "retaining wall" that is needed.

Fine ... if you think the Dead Sea is a microcosm of Mesopotamia, then show me the circumference that served as the 'higher land formations' that kept the Flood waters in.

And my point about recreating the Flood in a laboratory still stands.

 

[Split Rock]

There's tons. You just don't believe it. For one thing, the earth is 2/3 covered in water. For another, the entire fossil record could have been produce in a global flood. The Grand Canyon could have been carved. The resulting tectonic activity could have spawned volcanos. There are websites dedicated to this. if you want to see the evidence, Google it.

No, my friend, there is not. More importantly, there is tons of evidence that there was not a global flood. Evidence that falsifies an hypothesis or theory is more important than evidence that supports it. The global flood was falsified back in the middle nineteenth century, by Christian geologists who examained the earth's sedimentary layers expecting to find sedimentary layers attributable to it. See: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p82.htm (its a long read, but very interesting).

The fossil record cannot be attributed in its entirety to a global flood. Some represent marine environments, some terrestrial, some even desert. They are often interspersed with each other. The Grand Cayon could not have been carved by a flood, either. The solid rock of the canyon would have to solidifiy first (hardly possible during a flood) and then some layers would have to shift (unconformity). It is also impossible to explain how the different types of rocks could have formed in the order they are in. Finally, the bible makes no mention of volcanic activity associated with the flood. You are now adding to scripture something that isn't there. Oh, and didn't I mention that you should avoid those horrible Creation Ministry websites?

 

[OllieFranz]

1. The earth is not a container. It lacks encapsulating walls.
2. The water rushes out as soon as the bottom is opened.

How do lakes form without encapsulating walls? Man-made lakes (like Lake mead) have one retaining wall, but not an encapsulating wall. Natural lakes don't even have that.

When you pull the plug on a full bathtub, does it go bone dry instantly? Or does it drain at a reasonable pace for the size of the drain?Why are the Great Lakes still lakes? They have been draining into the Ocean via the St Lawrence Seaway for millenia, and more recently, via the Erie Canal/Hudson River and Chicago/Mississippi Rivers with a little help from mankind.

When the dam burst in Johnstown Pa in 1889, how did the town flood? Why didn't the water just spread out evenly over the whole Earth?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do lakes form without encapsulating walls? Man-made lakes (like Lake mead) have one retaining wall, but not an encapsulating wall. Natural lakes don't even have that.

When you pull the plug on a full bathtub, does it go bone dry instantly? Or does it drain at a reasonable pace for the size of the drain?Why are the Great Lakes still lakes? They have been draining into the Ocean via the St Lawrence Seaway for millenia, and more recently, via the Erie Canal/Hudson River and Chicago/Mississippi Rivers with a little help from mankind.

When the dam burst in Johnstown Pa in 1889, how did the town flood? Why didn't the water just spread out evenly over the whole Earth?

We're not talking lakes here ... we're talking a local flood, whose depth inundated the Ararat mountain chain.

 

[Elendur]

1. The earth is not a container. It lacks encapsulating walls.
2. The water rushes out as soon as the bottom is opened.

Doen' matter. My point still stands, your initial statement was poorly constructed.

That's like denying Tuesday.

And yet there are people who does just that, and many other similar things.

A. Noah didn't build an aircraft carrier.

Noah didn't need to build an aircraft carrier in order for my argument to be valid. You claimed that it wouldn't be possible to get all the animals on the ark, hence you denied that god possessed that power.

B. God didn't need to. He gave animals the ability to adapt and diversify. Scientists see these processes and pretend that they extend all the way back to origination.

From point B I get the feeling that you're more against the concept of common descent rather than the concept of macro evolution. Is that correct?

There's tons. You just don't believe it. For one thing, the earth is 2/3 covered in water. For another, the entire fossil record could have been produce in a global flood. The Grand Canyon could have been carved. The resulting tectonic activity could have spawned volcanos. There are websites dedicated to this. if you want to see the evidence, Google it.

The entire fossil record couldn't have been produced in a global flood if it (it being both the flood and the physical properties of the entire earth) had behaved similar to what we've observed.
The same goes for the GC and the tectonic activity.

Do you know the difference between evidence and interpretation?
Which one of those two should come first?
I reject their interpretations because they are unsound, because they found them upon cherry-picked evidence and have drawn them before observing the evidence.

What evidence? We're here. We came from somewhere. God isn't going to go against His will by offering YOU proof.

And isn't that a shame?
The fact that we are here is evidence of what?

A 500,000 posts by wanna-be experts,

B 100,000 Google hits for single progenitor,
C Wikkipedia- "In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.

A common ancestor. Why would you draw the conclusion that it's a single progenitor based upon that term?

 

[OllieFranz]

Fine ... if you think the Dead Sea is a microcosm of Mesopotamia, then show me the circumference that served as the 'higher land formations' that kept the Flood waters in.

And my point about recreating the Flood in a laboratory still stands.

Easy, find a topological map of the area (one where there are lines indicating how high the ground is. find the height of the highest spot between the two rivers (Tigris and Euphrates). Trace over the line in the surrounding foothills indicating 25 feet (a little more than 18 cubits).

Modern scholarship, however associates the Great Deluge with the formation of the Black Sea, when a ridge serving as a natural dam gave way and the waters of the Mediterranean Sea rushed into a valley on the other side. In which case, the Flood waters are still contained within the circumference of the higher land formations.

 

[OllieFranz]

We're not talking lakes here ... we're talking a local flood, whose depth inundated the Ararat mountain chain.

No, we are talking about a local flood which deposited some of its flotsam (specifically the Ark) upon the mountains (or the hills) of Ararat

 

[AV1611VET]

Easy, find a topological map...

No, thanks.

How about you tell me.

I would think you would know.

And you wonder why I call you guys 'Internet scientists?'

 

[verysincere]

We're not talking lakes here ... we're talking a local flood, whose depth inundated the Ararat mountain chain.

Excuses. Excuses.

And you really need to read your Bible MUCH more carefully. We have no idea today WHERE the mountains in Ararat were. Nor do we know that they were "inundated". (If you think you do, you need to read the pericope again.) We only know from the Hebrew text that the ark came to rest there in the Ararat region. (We don't know how that location related to the original construction site of the flood nor what path the ark may have taken during the flood year. Suggested locations for Arafat range widely among cultures and scholars.)

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we are talking about a local flood which deposited some of its flotsam (specifically the Ark) upon the mountains (or the hills) of Ararat

Then your version can take a hike.

There's too much twisting of the Scriptures for literalists to take your version seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Excuses. Excuses.

And you really need to read your Bible MUCH more carefully. We have no idea today WHERE the mountains in Ararat were. Nor do we know that they were "inundated". (If you think you do, you need to read the pericope again.) We only know from the Hebrew text that the ark came to rest there in the Ararat region. (We don't know how that location related to the original construction site of the flood nor what path the ark may have taken during the flood year. Suggested locations for Arafat range widely among cultures and scholars.)

Then I'll take the "fact" that the Flood was just a global one with a grain of salt, if you haven't a clue where what is.

And for your information, I believe Noah lived in what is now New Jersey, on a continent called Eden.

If the Flood was just a global one, how did Noah go from New Jersey to Mesopotamia? or wherever you think it went?

 

[Loudmouth]

Then your version can take a hike.

There's too much twisting of the Scriptures for literalists to take your version seriously.

Why isn't reality taken literally by creationists?

 

[verysincere]

Easy, find a topological map of the area (one where there are lines indicating how high the ground is. find the height of the highest spot between the two rivers (Tigris and Euphrates). Trace over the line in the surrounding foothills indicating 25 feet (a little more than 18 cubits).

Modern scholarship, however associates the Great Deluge with the formation of the Black Sea, when a ridge serving as a natural dam gave way and the waters of the Mediterranean Sea rushed into a valley on the other side. In which case, the Flood waters are still contained within the circumference of the higher land formations.

Well described! (I was thinking of sending AV to Google Earth where he could do what you described---but why bother? He's simply dodging and one of his slogan's is "Evidence can take a hike!")

And I may have written "Caspian Sea" by mistake. If I did, I meant to write "Black Sea", because I too was thinking of that same theory. In fact, didn't Mr. Ballard, the guy behind the Titanic find do some diving there in order to look for evidence of a major flood?

But isn't it incredible that we actually have to explain to AV et al how lakes, seas, and floods don't need "retaining walls" to contain their waters? It just gets plain silly.....again and again with those who believe that evidence "can take a hike!" and "logic can take a hike!"

(And by the way, I think AV's traditions have blasted in his brain the idea that the mountains in Ararat MUST have been where modern Turkey is today. He probably has a KJV Schoeffield Bible or whatever that had such a footnote. Or was it Halley's Bible Handbook that claims some young boy and his grandpa hiked up Mt. Ararat? They supposedly inspected the inside of an aging ark hulk---complete with deteriorating bird cages and cattle pens! Yes, it was just before the Russian Revolution after which it was impossible for Westerners to interview that young boy after he was all grown up! And they also claimed Soviet aviators regularly spotted the ark during WWII---but those atheist Commies censored all reports! Yes, a lot of Young Earth Creationist classics love those stories.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Why isn't reality taken literally by creationists?

Because reality contradicts the Scriptures on so many levels; as well as reality has so many dead-ends.

Just how we got our moon, for instance, has six different models of reality.

 

[Tomk80]

I'm calling Poe now. This is unbelievable.

Sorry, but no. Such stupidity is entirely expected from creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because reality contradicts the Scriptures on so many levels;

So why insist on an interpretation of Scriptures that is contradicted by reality?

Just how we got our moon, for instance, has six different models of reality.

No, it has one reality, how it actually happened.

 

[OllieFranz]

Then your version can take a hike.

There's too much twisting of the Scriptures for literalists to take your version seriously.

Your version is the one that's not literal to the Bible.

Genesis 8:4 (In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.) is the only mention of Ararat in the Flood account It does not say that the "Ararat chain" was "inundated." It does say that the Ark came to rest among the mountains (or the hills) of Ararat. Just as I stated before.

 

[46AND2]

Then I'll take the "fact" that the Flood was just a global one with a grain of salt, if you haven't a clue where what is.

And for your information, I believe Noah lived in what is now New Jersey, on a continent called Eden.

If the Flood was just a global one, how did Noah go from New Jersey to Mesopotamia? or wherever you think it went?

New Jersey? Why do you think that?