[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Uncle J]

Uncle J, do I know you from some other websites?

LOL, you sure do. I guess my writing and debating style aren't as distinctive as I thought!

You and I used to go round and round with "6days" and "Stripe" at ToL, with "Sherlock Holmes/Inquirer" at debatingchristianity, and.....um, can't think of others right now.

If you remember "showing science to a creationist is like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew", that should ring a bell.

 

[Barbarian]

One of the most powerful arguments against Evolution I ever heard, convinced me (then agnostic/atheist) that perhaps evolution was incorrect.

Its a simple argument, perhaps you can "refute it".

It springs off the idea of "survival of the fittest", that mutations beneficial to an organism aid survival and so become normal in all of the "community", and those that are not "die out".

Tend to. The race is not always to the swift. But that's where the smart money is.

The human eye has thousands of "parts". Every one of them must work for eyesight to benefit the organism.

Nope. Lots of people have defective eyes, but they still are useful. Did you really not know this? More to the point, we see all sorts of transitional eyes, from simple light-sensitive dark spots to the complex vertebrate and mollusc eyes. In molluscs, all the stages of evolution for eyes still exist in living species. Here are a few of them...

Not only are transitional stages possible; they actually exist. And each benefits the organisms with them. You've unknowingly mentioned one of the most powerful evidences for evolution.

But how could such a complex system evolve?

See above.

To illustrate, an eye socket without the eye would allow bugs to crawl in and eat the brain.

I don't think you thought this out very well. Octopi didn't first have sockets and only later have eyes. As you see above, the "sockets" were always evolving as the eye evolved.

An eye without the lens is useless

Nope. The Nautilus can focus an image the way a pinhole camera works without a lens. But even being able to identify the direction of light is a useful trait without being able to resolve an image. Notice some of the early stages are like that.

An eye that doesn't immediately confer a benefit to survival, works against survival as it is subject to damage and a weak point in any organism.

And now you know how this happened. There was always a benefit to detecting light.

It is logical eyesight must be the result of fiat creation.

As usual, God used evolution to do this. As He does with almost everything in biology.

Remember, the more you know, the less confusion about things like this.

 

[Barbarian]

You and I used to go round and round with "6days" and "Stripe" at ToL, with "Sherlock Holmes/Inquirer" at debatingchristianity, and.....um, can't think of others right now.

Ah, yes; thought you were familiar. It's sad to see how TOL has declined.

 

[Uncle J]

Ah, yes; thought you were familiar. It's sad to see how TOL has declined.

Given what it turned into, I was kinda glad to see it go down. Good riddance.

It is kinda funny to peek back in now and then and see how the ones who are left have turned on each other though. I guess some folks always need an enemy.

 

[Barbarian]

It is kinda funny to peek back in now and then and see how the ones who are left have turned on each other though. I guess some folks always need an enemy.

Some of those folks are deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with themselves. I suspected that a few of them use religion pretty much as a way to vent their fury at other people. Not all of them; some really far-right religious people seem sincere and Christian in their behavior. Those guys seem to have bailed out when the exodus took place a while back.

 

[Uncle J]

Some of those folks are deeply unhappy and uncomfortable with themselves. I suspected that a few of them use religion pretty much as a way to vent their fury at other people. Not all of them; some really far-right religious people seem sincere and Christian in their behavior. Those guys seem to have bailed out when the exodus took place a while back.

Yep. When some unhappy, angry folks find religion they just become unhappy, angry religious people. Takes all kinds I guess.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Tend to. The race is not always to the swift. But that's where the smart money is.

Nope. Lots of people have defective eyes, but they still are useful. Did you really not know this? More to the point, we see all sorts of transitional eyes, from simple light-sensitive dark spots to the complex vertebrate and mollusc eyes. In molluscs, all the stages of evolution for eyes still exist in living species. Here are a few of them...

Not only are transitional stages possible; they actually exist. And each benefits the organisms with them. You've unknowingly mentioned one of the most powerful evidences for evolution.


See above.


I don't think you thought this out very well. Octopi didn't first have sockets and only later have eyes. As you see above, the "sockets" were always evolving as the eye evolved.


Nope. The Nautilus can focus an image the way a pinhole camera works without a lens. But even being able to identify the direction of light is a useful trait without being able to resolve an image. Notice some of the early stages are like that.


And now you know how this happened. There was always a benefit to detecting light.


As usual, God used evolution to do this. As He does with almost everything in biology.

Remember, the more you know, the less confusion about things like this.

Variety in eyes testifies to a versatile creator, from my point of view.

You assume those are transitional, they seem to fit and serve each organism well. They aren't "transitional."

Each of those "eyes" fits my argument, they all are complex. How could a single one of them evolve from nothing to a functioning eye?

Moreover, given the many different eyes, that increases the odds against evolution exponentially.

If all life were from a common origin, it follows evolution would have chosen only one "eye" and only modified that slightly. Instead, there is a wonderful variety of eyes!

 

[Barbarian]

Variety in eyes testifies to a versatile creator, from my point of view.

Versatile enough to create a world that would produce life capable of evolving to fit environments.

You assume those are transitional

Even honest YE creationists admit the fact.

Evidence for not just one but for allthree of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Each of those "eyes" fits my argument, they all are complex.

The first is no more complex than the skin of your back. If you walk from shade to sun on a warm day, your skin will sense the light. C'mon. As you now see, all degrees of evolved complexity in eyes can be found in living organisms.

Moreover, given the many different eyes, that increases the odds against evolution exponentially.

No, that's wrong, too. A series of transitional forms, such as the above, is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact." That's what your fellow YE creationist admits.

If all life were from a common origin, it follows evolution would have chosen only one "eye" and only modified that slightly.

Nope. Each organisms has particular needs and not surprisingly, eyes evolved in different ways to fit the need. God is a lot wiser and more capable than YE creationists would like Him to be.

Instead, there is a wonderful variety of eyes!

As God foresaw, and created this world to bring forth. Smarter and more capable...

 

[Alfred Persson]

Versatile enough to create a world that would produce life capable of evolving to fit environments.

Even honest YE creationists admit the fact.

Evidence for not just one but for allthree of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms


The first is no more complex than the skin of your back. If you walk from shade to sun on a warm day, your skin will sense the light. C'mon. As you now see, all degrees of evolved complexity in eyes can be found in living organisms.


No, that's wrong, too. A series of transitional forms, such as the above, is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact." That's what your fellow YE creationist admits.


Nope. Each organisms has particular needs and not surprisingly, eyes evolved in different ways to fit the need. God is a lot wiser and more capable than YE creationists would like Him to be.


As God foresaw, and created this world to bring forth. Smarter and more capable...

I am shocked. Usually you have more going for your argument, and don't misstate what other believe. YE creationists DO NOT consider the variety of eyes, examples of transition from one to another.

AND each of these "eye kinds" are very complex, from DNA up.

AND it follows God would give each organism the eyes it needs to live. Your assumption of natural selection accounting for the diversity, and "fit" to the life form, is your "assumption". Unproved.


But at least we both believe in God, and in that I rejoice.

 

[Barbarian]

I am shocked.

A lot of creationists are shocked when they learn about these things. You aren't unique.

YE creationists DO NOT consider the variety of eyes, examples of transition from one to another.

Dr. Wise doen't really think that they evolved. He's merely telling you that the huge number of transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionry theory."

AND each of these "eye kinds" are very complex, from DNA up.

As you learned, the skin on your back is essentially what the simplest eye is in mollusks.

AND it follows God would give each organism the eyes it needs to live.

So he does. You just don't approve of the way He does it.

Your assumption of natural selection accounting for the diversity

Conclusion from evidence. Would you like to learn about some of the details that make this clear?

But at least we both believe in God, and in that I rejoice.

That's a good thing. But if you accepted His creation, I think you'd have a closer relationship with Him.

 

[KV-44-v1]

They've rejected your interpretation of Genesis.

The interpretation that is common to the majority of Bible readers.

You're not making sense.

Oh come on dude. This is getting ridiculous. If you truly think "the simplest explanation is always right" is some sort of binding rule in science, that's just further evidence of your profound ignorance.

I didn't say "the simplest is ALWAYS right". And now that I think about it, "nothing did it" is MUCH harder to explain than the fact God did it.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Anyways, your "wiser than YEC would like God to be" is a FAT LOAD OF NONSENSE.
YEC glorifies God FAR MORE than your views EVER could. You are just deflecting.
You have NEVER explained how "cReaTioN rEviSion!!1" And you cant. We all know why.


1. Thiestic evo implies that God is a clumsy cobbler who cobbles life together at SNAIL SPEED. 13.8 billion YEARS!! Pff! THE REAL GOD can and DID, INSTA CREATE (no cobbling stuff needed!)
i. ALL PLANTS in ONE day (not 1by1, no cobbling.)
ii. ALL sea creatures *AND* ALL birds in ONE DAY (not 1by1 like your goofy view of Creationism)
iii. ALL animals in ONE DAY **and** HUMANS, TOO!!
Total time creating: SIX DAYS. ~144 hours.
If Genesis is just a bunch of allegory, why are there 12 tribes of Israel and not 13.8 billion??
144/12=12.

"cReaTioN is rEviSion" - Balderdash Barbarian, 2024

Apparently there WERE 13.8 billion tribes and "iM rEviSinG!1!1!1!1"

I'd like to see how your cobbler version of God fares against The CREATOR GOD.

Why do most athiests, many agnostics, and plenty of Deists believe in upwards evolution, deeptime, and bing bang?? BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT THE BIBLE. THOSE FAKE THEORIES HELP THEIR NON-CHRISTIANITY. Duh. And Hitchens, one of the "4 horsemen" of athiesm, COMPLIMENTED a compromised Christian (compromisian) for accepting bioevo. If evolution is Biblical, and not revision, EXPLAIN THAT!! you can't!!

According to the Bible, God is not the Author of confusion. But you have the Bible be confusing allegory. Why would God start His Word off with vague allegory?? What's the point?? If youll start your speech off with allegory and give ZERO INDICATION, that reveals a serious communication deficit. Or just deception. Your allegoricism renders God either unwise or deceptive. That's one reason your allegoricism FAILS.

Oh wait! God "IS" the Author of confusion and "iM jUsT rEviSinG!!1!1!"

Why do we have a WEEK dividing up our months, instead of oodles of years??
Is the sabbath day a silly allegory too??

You must SACRIFICE YOUR BRAIN to believe "cReatIon reViSioN!!!1!"

https://crev.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BM-BeardedBuddha.jpg

Do you see trees pop up from the ground withOUT emerging from seeds?? NO. Obviously, God's creation of plants was ONE TIME. ALL plants from there come from the original "iMaGinArY" (lol) CREATED KINDS.
What did the majority of Christians believe that Genesis was in the 1700s-1800s?? Hint: li. ter. al.!

Oh wait, if it does not align wiith your OPINION it must be REVISION!!

Here's something to think about. No need to throw out your logic abilities. --> https://www.shelfreflection.com/blog/a-biblical-case-against-theistic-evolution


Children are revising Genesis with Creationism??!! What ILLOGICAL HOGWASH!!!!! How would they have the mental capacity?? What a goofy conspiracy theory.
Exegesis is by definition NOT revisionist. Nice try, but too bad i fried your try.

God's Word never changes. But evolutionary beliefs change EVERY SO OFTEN. So you must also believe that "God's Word never changes" is also "rEviSioN"!! More illogic from the one whose name fits him!!
But the Creation account in Genesis doesn't change. Change is for man-made bioevo belief, not God's PLAIN Word in Genesis. God is not as confusing as you evoists want Him to be.

You have as much logic as a FlatEarther, an ET alien believer, tin foil hat person. Hey, that's what i think of when you say "Creation RevIsiOn!1!1!" And I have explained REASONS WHY. My beliefs actually have a base, while you only have sand. Sad.
You seemed like a challenging debate opponent. But you lost a bunch of that challenge when your exposed your logic HOLE.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nope. Christians think that God created the world and the world brought forth living things as He created it to do. You won't accept His word on this, and instead rely on fallible men to tell you that they know better than God. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

You are dodging and confessing. But never even scratching my post. What's new.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I looked at the topics. Unless I missed one, all I saw were reporting changes within the species. That is micro evolution. The evidence for it is clearly there.
None of them show a transformation, or transition, from an existing species to a new, different species.
There is nothing that I have seen that documents this transition.

Dogs don't become cats. Cats don't become dogs. We can produce a mule by breeding a horse and a donkey. But the mule cannot reproduce itself. They are born sterile.

Change from two distinctly different species do not change into a reproducible third distinct species.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

This is interesting, because what you are describing is not how I learned about the theory of Evolution at a college level.

Essentially micro and macro are not concepts used to distinguish within and trancend8ng a species barrier. It's always been used as a timeframe if ever used. Like inter generational vs comparing a generation from say a million years previous.

You mentioned dogs turning into cats, but that isn't what is understood in applied evolutionary theory. For example Dogs branched off of Canis lupus lupus (wolves), wolves branched off of the larger canid branch which is shared with bears, seals, and walruses. Those are all part of the larger branch of Carnovores. Carnivores branched off of Miacids who are part of the mamal branch.


Evolution is looking at large groups and figuring out where lineages diverged. Saying an animal stays withen it's species sounds like a killer, but when you understand that a species is mostly just a segregated subsection of a larger group it starts to make sense that it isn't controversial

For example, you can't give birth to your uncle. The reason is because uncle is based on how we seperaye out family distinctions. Says a dog can't change into a cat because cats and dogs ate on opposite sides of the carnivore lineage. A dog lineage could develop cat like traits, but then it would be it's own thing.

Essentially early taxonomy was separating organism out by looks and physical features. With genetics the walls between species and within different species become easier to understands. The theory of evolution is not about transcending, but branching. Lineages becoming more stand alone from other lineages. This chart shows an example of that.

 

[Milk-Drops]

 

[follower]

Yahweh's Revelation of Creation was taught properly to Adam and Chavah's children , grand-children, great-grand-children, great great grand-children.... for many generations thus.
Yahweh's Revelation of Creation was still taught properly to a few on earth over the last few hundred years.
Yahweh's Revelation of Creation in all that time never changed one iota.

The enemy's fairy tale of evilution was taught in thousands of schools over the last generation or few generations perhaps.
In college, in high school, in grade school, worst of all in Sunday School at times.

The enemy's fairy tale(s) of evilution always changed frequently. It was always proven wrong, and changed to try to become "acceptable", but only succeeded in deceiving the deceived more.

what you are describing is not how I learned about the theory of Evolution at a college level.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyways, your "wiser than YEC would like God to be" is a FAT LOAD OF NONSENSE.

He's smarter than you seem to think, for example.

The interpretation that is common to the majority of Bible readers.

That interpretation admits the fact of evolution. YE creationists are a minority among Bible-believing Christians. Keep in mind, YE creationists (most of them, anyway) truly believe their new interpretation of Genesis; they aren't scoffing at scripture.

Christians think that God created the world and the world brought forth living things as He created it to do. You won't accept His word on this, and instead rely on fallible men to tell you that they know better than God. God is much wiser and more powerful than YE creationists would like Him to be.

You are dodging and confessing. But never even scratching my post. What's new.

God said it. I believe it. You should, too.

 

[Barbarian]

A dog lineage could develop cat like traits, but then it would be it's own thing.

Good point. Cheetahs, for example, have evolved a number of doglike traits like non-retractable claws. They have a somewhat doglike style of predation, based on running down prey. But they don't have dog claws. They are modified in a different way.

The enemy's fairy tale of evilution was taught in thousands of schools over the last generation or few generations perhaps.

Evolution is an observed phenomenon. God is not the enemy. He loves you. And evolution is part of His creation. This goes to the observation that most people who think they hate science, really don't know what it is.

Evolution is merely a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Sometimes, it's enough to produce new species, and when this happens enough, it produces higher taxa.

 

[Barbarian]

You just added that to scripture. Because you don't approve of the way God created things. Have a little humility and let God be God.

Idiotic hogwash. Do you believe that God is a stupid slow snail??

He's smart enough to produce a world that would bring forth living things as He intended. He uses nature for most things in this world. Let Him be God. He's doing a good job of it.

 

[Barbarian]

Why do most athiests, many agnostics, and plenty of Deists believe in upwards evolution, deeptime, and bing bang?? BECAUSE THEY CONTRADICT THE BIBLE. THOSE FAKE THEORIES HELP THEIR NON-CHRISTIANITY. Duh. And Hitchens, one of the "4 horsemen" of athiesm, COMPLIMENTED a compromised Christian (compromisian) for accepting bioevo.

You're getting overexcited. There is no "upward" evolution. It's just evolution. And as you have seen, it's entirely consistent with the Bible.

If evolution is Biblical, and not revision, EXPLAIN THAT!! you can't!!

Protons aren't Biblical, either. But accepting the phenomenon of protons is not revision, since the Bible does not deny things like evolution and protons.