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

[AV1611VET]

Now I understand why we're put on IGNORE so much.

 

[Split Rock]

Very clearly it was a global flood and very clearly it destroyed all life. The flood covered the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits. You may not know this but there is this thing called gravity which keeps water in an enclosed area at an even level relative to the center of gravity. If you had a perfectly round planet and covered one part to a depth of ten feet, the water would run off until it was all ten feet under water. Now if that planet was not perfectly smooth and you wanted to go over a 10,000 foot mountain, you would have to raise the water to a depth of 10,000 feet on the entire surface. If the mountains were much lower, say 5,000 feet, you still would have to elevate water to the depth of the highest mountain peak to cover it in water.

So, to pretend there was a LOCAL flood, you have to deny that gravity exists or contend that the flood never happened; which completely falsifies the words of Jesus Christ.

The depth of the water is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to the authors was the theological lesson the story teaches. It was a story. A story they learned from the Babylonians, who learned it from the Sumerians. They adapted it to their religion, because it was a useful teaching tool. The reason I say that the authors intend was not a flood that covered the planet, is that they had no such concept. Thus, how could they have written about it? Now there are some who claim the original story was inspired by a great local flood involving the Black Sea. Maybe it was.. maybe it wasn't. In either case, the depth of the waters would not have been kept the same.. more likely it would have been exaggerated. For the biblical authors, they would have picked a depth that would cover the local mountains they knew of, for the sake of the story. It makes little sense to focus on the depth described in the story.

Let’s look at motive. If the flood never happened, what motive would Jesus have to confirm that it had? If the flood DID happen, then evolution could never have occurred. That every animal taken aboard the ark was “after its kind” is explained, as well as their commandment to multiply after. That multiplying is validated by adaptation and natural selection. It completely disproves evolution because it involves a God-based causation.

1. Jesus wrote nothing in the bible.
2. According to the gospels, he never claimed the flood was an historical event in any case.
3. Adaption and natural selection is evolution. You must be really dense to continue claiming otherwise. Go read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." by Charles Darwin. You remember who he was, right? Then tell me again that natural selection is not evolution.

Evolution is a lie wrapped in distortions of science and is pushed by people who deny the accuracy of the Scriptures. Anyone who tries to weaken your faith by telling you that there is no disagreement between the Scriptures and evolution is either painfully misinformed or flat out lying.

Your faith must be very weak if you see scientific progress as a threat to it.

 

[Split Rock]

Now I understand why we're put on IGNORE so much.

Awww... come on... that is a really cute photo!

 

[KWCrazy]

Secondly, there are many christians who both accept scripture and evolution. Perhaps this essay will help you understand their position a little better:

[URL="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf"]http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf[/URL]

“Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse.”

This is an absolute fallacy. All of the above are studies of the natural world and are not in the least bit affected by a created universe. If God created another universe tomorrow all the same laws would still apply.

“It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5.”

Perfectly clueless. You can add two apples plus another two apples and the origin of the apples have no bearing on the answer. Conversely, the origin of the human genome has no bearing on the current composition of the human genome. The biological functioning of a human body doesn’t change whether a person is from Delaware or Des Moines… or if God just created him from nothingness.

“The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis,"

Extreme would be to say that the verbiage doesn’t state what it states. A literal reading is conservative, not extreme. It is also false to say it is recent. Jesus believed in over 2,000 years ago.

“applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines.”

The interesting thing about this is that earlier in the piece the author acknowledges that science and religion are studies of different things, and then he complains about religious interpretation of the word of God not yielding to scientific studies of the world God made. If the Bible states that God made the world in 6 days and cosmology suggest it took 60 billion years that we should defer to cosmology. You can do so if you want, but I believe God has more authority than the world He created.

“Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?”

I’m curious as to how someone could logically assume that a creation is greater than the Creator. How is that man, who can’t even create the simplest of life from chemicals readily available and with a process he believes to understand, could have the hubris to say that the Creator of the universe has to be lying about how He created it because the SUPERNATURAL creation doesn’t follow with NATURALISTIC cause and effect?

I guess to go from ignorance to stupidity requires a PhD.

 

[AV1611VET]

Awww... come on... that is a really cute photo!

Actually it is ...

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

If a turtle and a hare never actually had a race, why did Aesop confirm that they did?

It was a tortoise!

 

[KWCrazy]

The depth of the water is irrelevant.

Only because the existence of gravity prevents a local flood.

It was a story. A story they learned from the Babylonians, who learned it from the Sumerians.

I've heard that lie before. So it's your contention that the Bible is a lie. Got it.

they would have picked a depth that would cover the local mountains they knew of, for the sake of the story.

You can't get water 300 feet deep if there's a place for it to run off, let alone thousands of feet.

1. Jesus wrote nothing in the bible.

Nobody said He did. You contend his quotes are all lies. Got it.

2. According to the gospels, he never claimed the flood was an historical event in any case.

He did in Matthew, as I posted.

3. Adaption and natural selection is evolution. You must be really dense to continue claiming otherwise.

Nobody has ever said that microevolution hasn't occurred. you must be really dense to continue claiming otherwise. As I have posted, it wouldn't be possible to get every breed of every species of every animal on the ark, nor was it necessary. What separates it from evolution is that evolution denies the flood, the special creation of man, and takes the position that one single progenitor created all living things. It puts the credit for creation on natural forces, and not on God. I think you know this, and are simply misrepresenting the facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

“Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse.”

This is an absolute fallacy. All of the above are studies of the natural world and are not in the least bit affected by a created universe. If God created another universe tomorrow all the same laws would still apply.

For creationism to be true, those laws have to be false. You can't get light from galaxies 10 billion light years away in a 6,000 year old universe. You can't get zircons with massive amounts of lead from uranium decay in just 6,000 years. For creationism to be true, we have to throw every fundamental law in physics out the window.

Perfectly clueless. You can add two apples plus another two apples and the origin of the apples have no bearing on the answer. Conversely, the origin of the human genome has no bearing on the current composition of the human genome. The biological functioning of a human body doesn’t change whether a person is from Delaware or Des Moines… or if God just created him from nothingness.

However, you can use evolution to determine which sections of the genome may have function, and what they function may be. Our genomes are the product of evolution, so understanding the history that shaped our genome is important for understanding how it works.

For example, comparing our genome to other ape genomes can allow us to better understand which bases in our genome are under selective pressure and have vital functions.

A literal reading is conservative, not extreme.

A literal reading is a modernistic reading. People of ancient cultures understood that mythologies were meant to convey truths without needing to be literal. It would appear that this simply understanding is lost amongst modern fundamentalists.

The interesting thing about this is that earlier in the piece the author acknowledges that science and religion are studies of different things, and then he complains about religious interpretation of the word of God not yielding to scientific studies of the world God made. If the Bible states that God made the world in 6 days and cosmology suggest it took 60 billion years that we should defer to cosmology. You can do so if you want, but I believe God has more authority than the world He created.

You are turning the Bible into God. How interesting.

I’m curious as to how someone could logically assume that a creation is greater than the Creator.

I'm curious how someone can insist that a man made interpretation of a man written text somehow trumps the creation that God supposedly made directly. Care to explain?

 

[Loudmouth]

[/color]
One was a parable, the other was a fable.

As were the flood and creaion fables. Not that hard to understand.

Jesus spoke of the days of Noah as a teacher descriing a true event, not a if it were mythology or parable.

Prove it.

Evolution is a lie. You are promoting the lie.

Either demonstrate that it is a lie, or retract the claim.

 

[verysincere]

Only because the existence of gravity prevents a local flood.

Wow! The existence of gravity PREVENTS a local flood! I know a lot of people flooded out by Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina who would be amazed to read this!

In actual fact, gravity plays a MAJOR role in local floods! Gravity explains the rain moving towards the ground and running off of roofs and hillsides to flood the streets and basements.

Yes, KWcrazy is a Poe-player name for sure.

 

[Elendur]

...
You can't get water 300 feet deep if there's a place for it to run off, let alone thousands of feet.

You wanna bet? Take a 300, or a bit more, feet deep container. Fill it with water, open it at the bottom.
Voilá, you now have water, 300+ feet deep with a place for it to run off.

Repeat process with a thousand feet for fun.

...
Nobody has ever said that microevolution hasn't occurred. you must be really dense to continue claiming otherwise. As I have posted, it wouldn't be possible to get every breed of every species of every animal on the ark, nor was it necessary. What separates it from evolution is that evolution denies the flood, the special creation of man, and takes the position that one single progenitor created all living things. It puts the credit for creation on natural forces, and not on God. I think you know this, and are simply misrepresenting the facts.

1. Many people have claimed microevlution (both the scientific and the non-scientific term) doesn't occur.
2. Why wouldn't god be able to store all the animals on the ark? He is omnipotent, correct?
3. The flood has no objective evidence. That's the only thing that's necessary to not take it seriously.
4. The special creation of man has no objective evidence. That's the only thing that's necessary to not take it seriously.
5. ToE says that one single progenitor created all living things? Could you cite a source for that?

 

[verysincere]

KWCrazy wrote: The flood covered the mountains to a depth of 15 cubits.

The Hebrew text is helpful here:

1) The Hebrew word translated "mountains" in your English Bible can mean "hills" as well as "mountains". And anyone who is lived in various areas know that even the ENGLISH cultural differences between "hill" and "mountain" various greatly by region.

2) The Hebrew text is better translated as if an em-dash were added:
"The flood covered the hills----to a total depth of 15 cubits." That is, the depth of the Genesis flood was around 22 1/2 feet, enough to cover the hills in the only "world" which Noah had known.

Some scholars and scientists have suggested that the Caspian Sea may be a remnant of the deluge Noah experienced. A number of such topographies exist in the region which could explain a year long inundation by water. And those scholars are very familiar with the concept of GRAVITY!

 

[KWCrazy]

For creationism to be true, those laws have to be false. You can't get light from galaxies 10 billion light years away in a 6,000 year old universe. You can't get zircons with massive amounts of lead from uranium decay in just 6,000 years. For creationism to be true, we have to throw every fundamental law in physics out the window.

Bogus argument. God created the laws of physics. He intented the starlight to shine on the earth so it did. Everything was created in a balanced and mature state. There isn't a single aspect of science that would be different if God created another universe just like ours tomorrow. The creation serves the Creator, not vice versa.

However, you can use evolution to determine which sections of the genome may have function, and what they function may be.

Bogus. Origination has nothing to do with current complexity. Mankind has adapted for about 4,500 years, since the flood. He was created mature, perfectly adapted to his environment.

A literal reading is a modernistic reading. People of ancient cultures understood that mythologies were meant to convey truths without needing to be literal.

Bogus. The Scriptures were never considered to be mythology, but the inspired word of God. The word and God are inseparable.

You are turning the Bible into God. How interesting.

Oh, you caught me. I actually wrote John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I'm curious how someone can insist that a man made interpretation of a man written text somehow trumps the creation that God supposedly made directly.

Very simply, the text is not man made. In fact, jesus, being the son of God, knew the Scriptures without studying them.
John 17:15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”

Try learning something about what Jesus knew about the Bible.

 

[KWCrazy]

You wanna bet? Take a 300, or a bit more, feet deep container. Fill it with water, open it at the bottom.
Voilá, you now have water, 300+ feet deep with a place for it to run off.

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

1. Many people have claimed microevlution (both the scientific and the non-scientific term) doesn't occur.

That's like denying Tuesday.

2. Why wouldn't god be able to store all the animals on the ark? He is omnipotent, correct?

A. Noah didn't build an aircraft carrier.
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.

3. The flood has no objective evidence. That's the only thing that's necessary to not take it seriously.

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.

4. The special creation of man has no objective evidence. That's the only thing that's necessary to not take it seriously.

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

5. ToE says that one single progenitor created all living things? Could you cite a source for that?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bogus argument. God created the laws of physics. He intented the starlight to shine on the earth so it did. Everything was created in a balanced and mature state. There isn't a single aspect of science that would be different if God created another universe just like ours tomorrow. The creation serves the Creator, not vice versa.

We do not see a "mature state". We see billions of years of history in those distant stars. Are you saying that this history has been faked? It's all just made up?

Also, why does a "mature" zircon need Lead in it? Please explain. Why does a "mature" rock need radiohaloes from slowly decaying uranium? Are you also going to claim that God put fake fossils in the ground?

Bogus. Origination has nothing to do with current complexity.

Yes, it does. The process that formed our genome was evolution, so understanding evolutoin allows us to understand how our genome works. It's basic biological science.

He was created mature, perfectly adapted to his environment.

Why does maturity have to include hominid transitional fossils in the ground, and share ERV's between us and chimps? These are clear evidences of shared ancestry, and you are trying to ignore them.

Bogus. The Scriptures were never considered to be mythology, but the inspired word of God. The word and God are inseparable.

Why can't mythology be inspired by God? Didn't Jesus teach in parables?

Oh, you caught me. I actually wrote John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

We aren't talking about the Word. We are talking about the Bible which is referred to as the "word", with a little w. They are not the same thing, even in christian theology. You are deifying a man written text.

Very simply, the text is not man made.

Yeah, they are. They even say right in the Bible that they were written by men. It's no secret.

In fact, jesus, being the son of God, knew the Scriptures without studying them.

Did Jesus tell his followers to interpret the Bible so that it was contradicted by the facts found in reality?

 

[Loudmouth]

For another, the entire fossil record could have been produce in a global flood.

No, it couldn't. Radiometric dating is clear. The fossils are spread out over hundreds of millions of years.

How does a flood sort fossils so that they are only associated with igneous rocks with specific ratios of parent and daughter isotopes? How does that work? Quite simply, it doesn't work. Floods don't do that. The ages are real.

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.

There are websites dedicated to all sorts of fantasies on the Internet. The fact of the matter is that you can not get the incised meanders seen in the Grand Canyon from catastrophic erosion. Just doesn't happen. You get a braided channel from catastrophic erosion, as seen in the Western Scablands in the NW US. This was all worked out in the early 1800's before evolution was even proposed. You are 200 years behind modern geology.

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

We have the proof, and I have referenced it in several posts now. Your only rebuttal seems to be that God just made it look like we evolved, just made it look like the universe was old, etc. Sorry, but that just isn't a valid rebuttal unless you really think God is a trickster.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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.

In fact, I'll venture to say scientists cannot build a model and demonstrate a local flood in Noah's time without exaggerating the details.

 

[Split Rock]

Only because the existence of gravity prevents a local flood.

This is nonsensical.

I've heard that lie before. So it's your contention that the Bible is a lie. Got it.

The existance of the Sumerian "Epic of Gilgamesh" is no lie. Epic of Gilgamesh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can't get water 300 feet deep if there's a place for it to run off, let alone thousands of feet.

It is a story. Do you understand the concept of "suspension of disbelief?" Stop treating the story of the flood like a scientific treatise, and you will not have such a problem.

Nobody said He did. You contend his quotes are all lies. Got it.

I do not know how many of the quotes attribited to Jesus were really said by him. Neither do you.

He did in Matthew, as I posted.

Refering to the story, does not mean he saw it as an historical event.

Nobody has ever said that microevolution hasn't occurred. you must be really dense to continue claiming otherwise. As I have posted, it wouldn't be possible to get every breed of every species of every animal on the ark, nor was it necessary. What separates it from evolution is that evolution denies the flood, the special creation of man, and takes the position that one single progenitor created all living things. It puts the credit for creation on natural forces, and not on God. I think you know this, and are simply misrepresenting the facts.

1. Evolution does not deny the flood. Geology does.
2. If God created the progenitor and the universe that would evolve what he wanted it to evolve, how does that take credit away from your god? I am not asserting, this, but this hypothesis is at least consistant with the scientific evidence and with belief in a creator god.
3. I have not represented anything.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

In fact, I'll venture to say scientists cannot build a model and demonstrate a local flood in Noah's time without exaggerating the details.

Maybe God held the floods waters in!

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe God held the floods waters in!

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