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

[Milk-Drops]

phylogenetics?

Yes. Are you familiar or do you want me to go into more detail. I find the field fascinating.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, someone who claimed to know about genetic information was going to show us which of two organisms have more genetic information, with the required numbers. When should we expect that demonstration?

 

[KV-44-v1]

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

You are just repeating this & can't back it up.
He is smarter than YOU seem to think. I think He's omniscient.

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.

OK, shouldn't have used "is", shouldve used "was". (what the majority of Christians before the 1800's believed about Genesis.) Obviously, many Christians are getting a weaker worldview over time as athiests push their naturalistic origin stories everywhere.

"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. " - Deflector, 2024

Untrue on all fronts. Especially that last sentence.
Apparently you do not realize the implications of your worldview in which God "sloooowly evolves" animals.

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

Where did He say it? Please cite the Book,Ch., & V.

 

[KV-44-v1]

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.

So it seems you don't believe God's Word (there is no evolution in the Bible only CREATION) and think that kinds DONT produce after their own kind. Okay.


You still have given no Biblical support for "Genesis=allegory".
Until you do, why should I believe that it is?

 

[KV-44-v1]

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

Finally, something agreeable. Going by 'change in allele frq. in pop's over time' definition, that is.
There is no "upward" evolution - because God created animals to produce after their own kind.

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.

God didn't reveal protons in His Word, probably because humans would discover them eventually. God gives the basics & neccesities.

Not genetic degradation ("devolution"/genetic entropy) & substitutionary change, no, but it DOES deny kinds turning into other kinds.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Gravitational "beliefs" (actually science doesn't work in "beliefs") change EVERY SO OFTEN.

Oh? Source?

Science is like that.

God's Word in Genesis isn't, though.

It probably seems like cheating to creationists who are stuck with their revisions of Genesis pretty much forever,

Show me Biblical evidence of this supposed "revision".

 

[KV-44-v1]

"Contracreation evolution" is an oxymoron. Evolution is God's creation of new forms.

Contracreation creationism is the oxymoron.
Upwards-evolution is contradicted by the RELIABLE (not confusing nor vague) Genesis account.

You might as well say "contracreation electromagnetic beliefs."

Again, electromagnetism isn't a foundation for Christian beliefs. People of all worldviews can and do acept electromagnetism. Genesis is. Compromising Genesis with athiesm is not good idea.

And of course, no one can find bible verses to show electromagnetic theory. Be content with what God actually is telling you, and stop trying to add things.

Take your advice. I'm already taking it. If I wasn't, I'd believe upwards-evolution too.
If God wanted Christians to believe evolution, He would have revealed that He used it in His Word. But He didn't, therefore, God DIDNT create using evolution.
And obviously, you would then be much more comfy with a literal Genesis instead of being forced to accuse me of "revising".
And athiests would be running from evolution instead of running from Creation.

Notice that nature does exactly what God created it to do. It brought forth life and then produced all the different organisms.
Creationists will admit that much, but they will not accept the way He did it. And that's what's keeping you from a deeper understanding of His word.

Yes they will. They read Genesis and came to the logical conclusions.
Put science in submission to God's Word - NOT the other way around.
Assuming that God revealed a bunch of confusing allegory to us in the very 1st book isn't improving your understanding.
It's an exegetical reading of Genesis that allows me to understand His Word.
I wonder when you started believing that Genesis wasn't a truthful creation account.
I've always believed it was true and plain, not shadowy and vague. So your accusation of "kv44's revision" doesn't stand scrutiny.

Or of DNA. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in scripture.

Cars and computers also aren't in the Bible. The issue I have is with COUNTERBiblical ideas.

Of course, gravity and protons don't contradict your new revisions of scripture.

New? What sources do you have to back up "new revisions"??
Would the Jews have believed that God is a slow cobbler instead of the CREATOR? NO. The Jews were creationists - you should be too.

So you don't talk about them not being there. Why not just set your pride aside, and accept it God's way?

No pride - only a plain + HIGH view of Scripture.

 

[KV-44-v1]

answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2024/03/30/can-christians-believe-in-evolution/
Lastly, consider that the order of events is completely different between the creation account in Genesis and the evolutionary story. For example, in the creation account, plants are the first life that God creates. In the evolutionary story, life begins as a single-celled organism and plants arrive many millions of years later.

In the biblical account, sea creatures (including whales) are created on day five and land creatures on day six. In the evolutionary story, sea creatures evolve first, followed by land creatures, but then some land creatures evolve to go back into the ocean and become whales.

In the creation account, birds are created on day five and dinosaurs (land animals) on day six. In the evolutionary story, dinosaurs evolved first and then evolved into birds.

In the creation account, mankind was created from the dust and woman from his side. In the evolutionary story, man and woman both evolved from an apelike creature.

The order of events is totally different! You can’t blend the two and remain faithful to the plain meaning of Genesis.



Who is the reviser now! All you do is try and deflect Creationist claims about you.
Unlike you, I back up my position that UPWARDSEVOLUTION is the revision.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Give us a testable definition of "upwards-bioevo evidence."

But around 8,000 years ago in what's now Turkey — just when humans were starting to milk newly domesticated cows, goats and sheep — mutations near the gene that produces the lactase enzyme started becoming more frequent. And around the same time, adult lactose tolerance developed. The mutation responsible for that may be between 2,000 and 20,000 years old; estimates vary.

But in order for that new trait to have persisted over many generations, something unique must have given milk drinkers an evolutionary edge.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Only a minority of humans can drink fresh milk without adverse effects. The mutations for lactase persistance allow humans to use milk in adulthood:
The genetic basis for population variation in lactase production as a dominant trait is well-described, although not yet complete, with cis-element mutations responsible for LP identified in the transcriptional enhancer MCM6 [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Although LP has been known for almost a century, it was not until 2002 that the first LP mutation was discovered [69]. Such a delayed discovery was probably caused by the location of the LP alleles, which map 14 kb upstream of the LCT gene and not within, or immediately upstream, of it. Among identified variants, the −13910:C>T (rs4988235) [69] has almost reached fixation in some parts of Europe, while others such as −13907:C>G (rs41525747), −13915:T>G (rs41380347), −14009:T>G (rs869051967), and −14010:G>C (rs145946881) are found at variable frequencies in the Middle East and Africa [10,12,14]. Besides being highlighted as the most widespread and strongly associated LP variants, these five SNPs have been reported as functional markers according to a vast range, of both in vitro transfection assays, and in vivo studies [10,12,13,16,39,65,66,70,71,72,73,74].

In addition to these five genetic markers, up till now, eighteen new SNPs mapping the MCM6 have also been associated with LP in specific populations, thereby making a total of twenty-three known SNPs that currently underlie the genetic etiology of LP (Table 1). Interestingly, these variants seem to have arisen during the same time period, but independently in different human populations, and this is the reason why LP has become a textbook example of convergent regulatory evolution, and gene-culture co-evolution. In the presented Table 1, we display the known identifiers for mentioned variants as well as any evidence of functional control on LCT expression according to the literature. Analysis of an 80 kb haplotype covering the region of LCT and the upstream MCM6 enhancer has further confirmed a tight association of these LP variants with particular haplotypes [10,12,14], and shows that haplotype diversity also differs between populations, with the least diversity observed in Northern Europeans [9].

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerance

Happens in bacteria, too.

Evolution of a regulated operon in the laboratory.​

Genetics 1 July 1982
The evolution of new metabolic functions is being studied in the laboratory using the EBG system of E. coli as a model system. It is demonstrated that the evolution of lactose utilization by lacZ deletion strains requires a series of structural and regulatory gene mutations. Two structural gene mutations act to increase the activity of ebg enzyme toward lactose, and to permit ebg enzyme to convert lactose into allolactose, and inducer of the lac operon. A regulatory mutation increases the sensitivity of the ebg repressor of lactose, and permits sufficient ebg enzyme activity for growth. The resulting fully evolved ebg operon regulates its own expression, and also regulates the synthesis of the lactose permease.

You should realize that evolution never makes something out of nothing. It always modifies something present. The closest thing to "Brand New DNA" is when non-coding DNA is mutated and forms a new functional gene. Turns out, that's the source of many new genes. The other source is gene duplication and mutation. Would you like to learn how those processes work?

answersingenesis.org/genetics/dairy-products-early-saharan-inhabitants/
Lactose ability was in humans from the start.

"You should realize that evolution never makes something out of nothing. "
But God made EVERYTHING out of nothing.

Except humans which He supernaturally formed out of dust. DUST - NOT monkeys!
That explains why our skin cells look like dust when they fall & shed. Also, out bodies have all the elements from dirt, according to something I read.
God LITERALLY formed us from dust. No confusing allegories.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nope. Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist, in the 1800s, admitted millions of years of Earth's history. St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, pointed out that the days of Genesis could not be literal 24-hour days.

Two people are not a majority.
What Bible verses did Augstine give to back his claim?
Augstine was a Catholic, by the way. And they are NOT known for their allegiance to Scripture. They add stuff like purgatory, saint worship, indulgences (buy your way to Heaven), and more.
What Bible verses did Darwin give to back upwards-evolution? ZERO.

We got ~6,000 years by calculating the genealogies, etc. So Spurgeon was incorrect & he just appeased the secularists/athiests.
I doubt he gave verses to back 'illions of years.
Also, I notice that what you gave do NOT back upwards-evolution.

Do you trust God's account of Noah's Ark & worldwide Flood - or not?

 

[KV-44-v1]

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


1. Thiestic evo implies that God is a cobbler who cobbles life together at SNAIL SPEED. 13.8 billion YEARS!! 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 Revision" says Barbarian!

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

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.



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






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?? (not just two) Hint: li. ter. al.!



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!!!!! 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"!!
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.

 

[Barbarian]

Two people are not a majority.

Just pointing out that ancient and 19th century Christians accepted Genesis as it is.

What Bible verses did Augstine give to back his claim?

Learn about it here:
No; the separation of light and darkness was the reason for this new terminology.
Not all light is day, nor is all darkness night. But when light and darkness are separated and
put in their respective places alternating with each other, then they are called ‘day’ and
‘night’. The very point of any word, of course, is to distinguish it from other things. (Indeed,
the word ‘name’ [nomen] comes from the fact that it ‘marks out’ things [notare], as if with
their own ‘mark’ [notamen]; it ‘marks out’ a thing in the sense that it distinguishes it, and
helps anyone mentioning it to identify it.) So perhaps the act of calling the light ‘day’ and
the darkness ‘night’ itself was the separation of light and darkness: giving them names was
the same as allocating them their places.
Another possibility is that the later terms were meant to specify what exactly which
light and darkness were being referred to. It’s as if Scripture were saying: “God made light;
he divided light from darkness; the light in question was the day, and the darkness in
question was the night. Don’t think that any other type of light or darkness are being
referred to here.” After all, if every light was ‘day’ and every darkness could be thought of as
‘night’ then there would be no need for the statement God called the light ‘day’ and the
darkness he called ‘night’.
(6.27) This begs the question what exactly was meant by ‘day’ and ‘night’. There’s no way
this could refer to the day which lasts from sunrise to sunset, or to the night which lasts
from sunset until sunrise, since the luminaries in the sky had not yet been created!
St. Augustine of Hippo De Genesi ad Litteram Day and night (Gen. 1:5)

Augstine was a Catholic, by the way.

Catholics were, at the time, the only Christians. The schism with the Eastern Church and the Protestant secession had not yet occurred. However, Augustine is a revered theologian in all three of these branches of Christianity.

What Bible verses did Darwin give to back upwards-evolution? ZERO.

As you learned, "upwards-evolution" is a creationist superstition. No such thing in science. And you might was well ask, "What Bible verses did Issac Newton give to back gravitation?" ZERO.

Darwin did, however recognize that evolution was God's creation:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

We got ~6,000 years by calculating the genealogies, etc.

Except no one gets it particularly right, even assuming that all dates and ages line up. Given that the Bible gives two conflicting genealogies for Christ, it becomes apparent that they weren't intended to be used for timekeeping.

Also, I notice that what you gave do NOT back upwards-evolution.

Your fantasy. The real thing isn't about "upwards." So up to you to justify it.

Do you trust God's account of Noah's Ark & worldwide Flood

Yes. As you know, creationists added the idea that it was worldwide, and so on. I accept it as God gave it to us, without creationist revisions.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyways, your "wiser than YEC would like God to be" is a SHAM.

I read your denial, but everyone can see what you write here.

YEC glorifies God FAR MORE than your views EVER could.

If that was true, you'd accept His word as it is, without adding all your new ideas.

You have NEVER explained how "cReaTioN rEviSion!!1"

For example, you've tried to convert the "days" of the creation account to be literal ones. As you see, Christians over a thousand years ago, knew that could not be true.

Thiestic evo implies that God is a cobbler who cobbles life together at SNAIL SPEED. 13.8 billion YEARS!!

You're indignant that God didn't move fast enough for you. Let Him be God and do it as He sees fit.

 

[Barbarian]

Finally, something agreeable. Going by 'change in allele frq. in pop's over time' definition, that is.
There is no "upward" evolution - because God created animals to produce after their own kind.

But He doesn't say that. That's your addition to His word. You should avoid that.

If Genesis is just a bunch of allegory, why are there 12 tribes of Israel and not 13.8 billion??
144/12=12.

Why should there be 13.8 billion tribes of Israel? I think you're a little confused.

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

Actually, there is a seven-day cycle in animals. So once again, God is smarter than creationists are willing to have Him be.

I've got some work to do. So I'll pick up the rest of your Gish Gallop a little later.

 

[Barbarian]

OK, shouldn't have used "is", shouldve used "was". (what the majority of Christians before the 1800's believed about Genesis.)

As you learned, Christians over 1500 years ago, knew that the creation days were literal ones.

 

[Barbarian]

God's Word never changes.

By YE creationists try to change it. Their eisegesis is to make His word more acceptable to modern man.

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

Here's the first place your guys messed up:
The definition they use for theistic evolution is this:

“God created matter and after that did not guide or intervene or act directly to cause any empirically detectable change in the natural behavior of matter until all living things had evolved by purely natural processes.”

They've defined deism, not the Christian take on evolution. For theistic evolution, God remained completely involved with every process. Hence, while the earth brought forth living things, it did so because God created it to do so. And every particle of the physical world is still under His watch and control.

 

[Barbarian]

Next place your guys messed up:
"Chapter 3: Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with the Teachings of the New Testament
How do we interpret genealogies?"

There are two contradictory genealogies for Jesus in the NT. Which tells us that they are not to be taken seriously as a historical matter. And no, one is not for Mary; both purport to be for Joseph.

Next place your guys got it wrong:
"Chapter 4: Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with Historical Christian Doctrine"
This is Christian doctrine:
I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
As you see, evolution is completely compatible with this statement of essential Christian belief. The additions of YE creationism are incompatible with evolution, geology, astronomy, and much more. But of course that's not Christian doctrine.
Next up:
"Theistic Evolution Is Incompatible with Historical Christian Doctrine
What have historical church creeds stated about the doctrines of creation and sin?"
See above. Evolution is completely compatible with two original human ancestors who disobeyed God and thereby required a Redeemer. On the other hand, Things like the evolution of lactose tolerance are completely contrary to YE creationism. Adam and Eve could have had at most 4 alleles for each gene. Yet today there are dozens of alleles for each locus. All the rest, including useful mutations like lactose tolerance evolved since that time.
Next error:
"Theistic Evolution Undermines Twelve Creation Events and Several Crucial Christian Doctrines"
In fact, it merely undermines the YE creationist additions to scripture, but not any crucial Christian doctrine.

"Proponents of theistic evolution are claiming, in essence, that there are whole areas of human knowledge about which they will not allow the Bible to speak with authority."

Rather, they don't accept YE creationists defining what God must say. The Bible has nothing to say about DNA, evolution, nuclear physics, and many other things. For YE creationists, the Bible is not good enough as it is so they have to insert meanings therein to make it acceptable to them.

"Maybe I’m wrong to reject theistic evolution."
No kidding. But unless you make an idol of your new ideas and insist one much believe them to be saved, it won't matter. God doesn't care what you think of evolution.
“Theistic evolution undermines the glory given to God for his unfathomable wisdom in the creation of all living things, because in theistic evolution no divine intelligence or wisdom beyond the properties present in inanimate matter is required for matter to evolve into all forms of life.

A God wise and powerful enough to create a world that would bring forth life according to His will is far too wise and powerful for YE creationists. They'd prefer a god who had to do it one a time. This is most Christians reject YE creationism.

 

[reddogs]

Gravitational "beliefs" (actually science doesn't work in "beliefs") change EVERY SO OFTEN. Science is like that. It probably seems like cheating to creationists who are stuck with their revisions of Genesis pretty much forever, while scientists refine and improve their understanding of gravity and evolution.


Nope. Spurgeon, the great Baptist evangelist, in the 1800s, admitted millions of years of Earth's history. St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, pointed out that the days of Genesis could not be literal 24-hour days.

Well, they dont believe Gods Word it seems. A non-literal approach to Genesis devalues the authority of Word of God and does much harm to the Christian faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, they dont believe Gods Word it seems.

They believe God on His own terms, unlike creationists, who add their own ideas to His word.

A non-literal approach to Genesis devalues the authority of Word of God

Since the text itself tells us that it is not a literal account, revising it to fit a literal account would put man's word over that of God. And that, as I've shown here, does serious damage to His Church.

 

[follower]

Catholics were, at the time, the only Christians.

At no time ever was nor is this true.