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

[Barbarian]

But ID posits numerous interventions by deity (God-in-the-gaps) and here I think that IE gives a better explanation via self-evolving coding kick-started by deity, though allowing for spiritual, not biological, interventional steps, such as transforming ape to Genesis man (imago dei), and what C S Lewis called the Next Step as the cross of Christ.

Denton is perhaps sliding toward theistic evolution. Both he and fellow IDer Michael Behe say that evolution is a fact.

 

[Vinny37]

Denton is perhaps sliding toward theistic evolution. Both he and fellow IDer Michael Behe say that evolution is a fact.

C S Lewis noted that [evolution] basically means change, neither necessarily for the better or worse from our perspective, and natural selection remains a big plus for Darwin. So E is indeed fact in that sense. ID posits many more helping hands from heaven for biological evolution, and if not for microevolution (different types of canines) at least for macroevolution (eg hagfish from sea squirts). But the latter can be like big jumps as from say 32 bit to 64 bit computers, with a 1 bit having duplicated (with variation according to its code), and eventually two 1 bits producing a 2 bit (genome doubling): Intelligent Evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

So E is indeed fact in that sense. ID posits many more helping hands from heaven for biological evolution, and if not for microevolution (different types of canines) at least for macroevolution (eg hagfish from sea squirts).

Paedomorphosis is a common evolutionary path. Tunicates (sea squirts) don't look much like hagfish, but this does...

It's a sea squirt larva. If they grow to sexual maturity without becoming fixed to a rock like normal sea squirts, you effectively have an agnathan, of the class Myxini. (lampreys and hagfish).

Big jump? Well, genetically not. But morphologicially, it looks like a lot until you consider paedomorphosis.

 

[Vinny37]

Paedomorphosis is a common evolutionary path. Tunicates (sea squirts) don't look much like hagfish, but this does...

It's a sea squirt larva. If they grow to sexual maturity without becoming fixed to a rock like normal sea squirts, you effectively have an agnathan, of the class Myxini. (lampreys and hagfish).

Big jump? Well, genetically not. But morphologicially, it looks like a lot until you consider paedomorphosis.

I can neither confirm nor deny, as the saying goes, and do but recommend Perry’s book (even on Kindle). “For years the 2R Hypothesis was hotly disputed; however, during the last decade it’s gained considerable support as more genomes are sequenced. Sequenced data has matched Ohno’s predictions. Obviously no one was there to observe the sea squirt’s transition to hagfish 500 million years ago. We infer this from genetic data. But the general phenomenon of new species through Hybridization has been superbly documented since the 19th century—with cases of Genome Multiplication in plants like wheat and rice (673), butterflies and moths (632), and donkeys and mules (243).”

Marshall, Perry. Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design (2015:140).

 

[Barbarian]

Marshall, Perry. Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design (2015:140).

I think the most telling evidence has to do with the relative efficiency of design vs evolutionary processes. Engineers are now solving problems that are too complex for design, by copying nature:

Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Barbarian]

Since evolution has an element of randomness acted upon by non-random processes, there is always contingency in evolution. However, this is still consistent with God's will. As noted by St. Thomas Aquinas:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae sec. 22 The Providence of God

 

[KV-44-v1]

"But as I began to think more critically about the evidence for biological evolution and…began to search it out myself, I realized there was a whole host of problems,” Fuz comments."
reasons.org/explore/publications/reasons-newsletter/responding-to-theistic-evolution


• Repetition of biological features in unrelated life-forms (e.g., echolocation in bats and dolphins)

• Genesis’ fit within the history genre rather than in poetry or any other genre

 

[KV-44-v1]

You may wish to turn allegory into literal history, but you have turned away from God's word in doing so.

Then you don't believe God's Word.

In Church scenario:

Barbarian: "I believe an allegory!!"
The rest of the group: <stares>

If you think so, then you have rejected the Bible.

Which parts?
citations needed.

You don't believe His parables?

parables inherently reference something else. thought you knew. :/

You think Genesis didn't happen it is mere allegory? That explains a great deal. Your position is unsustainable!

; so long as you try to shoehorn your modern revisions into scripture, you'll have set yourself apart from Him and His word.

Sounds like the Barb, not me.

 

[KV-44-v1]

They are both too evolved in their own ways for one to have produced the other.

Oh?
You believe allelic change has limits then?

If alleles have no limit to their change, they can become ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.
Dinoes into birds, for example!
If dino can give rise to Bird why should ape (oe whatever ancestor they allegedly came from) not give rise to man??

How do you determine if something is "too evolved"?? THAT IMPLIES ALLELE CHANGE HAS LIMITS!!

That is, if you will actually STICK with your watered down def. of evolution. (CAFPT)

 

[KV-44-v1]

For clarity, I figured you are yec, which is best in line with all Scripture.
But I did not think or know you were/are ??? sda ? which has some not all together good ideas, and some seeming perfectly correct ideas (or used to) .....

No, I'm not SDA. Their beliefs are a compromise too, like Barb's is. Just a different kind of compromise.

 

[KV-44-v1]

We see, therefore, that the advent movement was unbiblical from its beginning. It was led by a woman, which is forbidden in Scripture (1 Timothy 2:12), and it set a date for Christ’s return, which is also forbidden.

If SDA's believed in bioevo and peddled it, well IDK how Barb would respond.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Barbarian

wayoflife.org/reports/a_warning_about_seventh_day_adventism.html

Seventh-day Adventism professes to teach salvation by grace through faith, but they redefine this to add works to grace.

So Barb, you saw the words "revision" and "redefine" in SDA-debunking articles and thought it would be a good idea to repeat it a lot to Bible-trusting YEC's, didn't you. :P

There were many Genesis-trusters who knew better than to think Genesis was some "allegory".
WITHOUT any SDA stuff.

Associating YEC with SDA is called the Guilt By Assoc. fallacy.

AIG would gun down the sda position, using Scripture and logic, quickly.
your assumption that my beliefs are "New" is without credulity.

biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/full-of-beans/

The understanding that the universe is thousands (not billions) of years of old has always been the majority position of the church until the mid-1700s, and is affirmed by Scripture itself, (e.g. Mark 10:9, Exodus 20:11).[11] There is no hint in Scripture of deep time, nor any indication in the Scriptures that believers of the time ever held to any other view than a literal Genesis in which God created in six literal days as the basis for our work week.
By the standard definition of creation (that God created the original organisms supernaturally, and that they reproduce after their kind), many Christians reject creation in favor of theistic evolution. This of course undermines the Gospel, because the Gospel is predicated on the fact that death is the penalty for man’s sin. However, in an evolutionist or old-earth view, death has always existed as a natural part of the world. In such a case, it is not an enemy that entered the world when Adam sinned. It could not be the result or penalty for sin if it already existed. In such a case, Christ’s death on the cross would be meaningless.

 

[KV-44-v1]

I hope that these comments have been helpful. I realize how easy it is to become intimidated by secular scientists, and that there is temptation to read Scripture through the lens of secularist views on origins. But this is not honoring to the Lord. Let us encourage one another to have a higher view of Scripture, and to fear God rather than man. God really does understand how and when He created the universe. And we can trust His Word.

 

[KV-44-v1]

it's just the way He does it.

How would you verify this?


Even speciation is not the same as evolution, and variation in the gene pool is not great evidence of evolution.

Variation happens—no serious scientist dismisses that. However, there are limits to how far that variation will go. The limits are the boundaries of the biblical kinds.

Even some evolutionists will admit to these limitations, including Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps one of the most preeminent evolutionists of the twentieth century. When speaking of marine invertebrates, for example, Gould recognized there was no new information being added.

“We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence.”

Of course, Gould was completely unwilling to change his worldview, despite the evidence, and instead crafted an entirely new evolutionary model to prop up his religion.

 

[KV-44-v1]

They invented your new doctrines.

Nahhh, Genesis invented my old doctrines.

St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of the creation story could not be literal days.

?
He simply said that all the days happened in only 1 day.

The people who misled you confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself.

Do you believe in common descent or not?
Both CD and Bioevo = false!

accept the fact of an ancient Earth.

There is exactly 0 verification for old earth.

Because the God revealed in Scripture created a perfect world, a world with no death, suffering, or disease. Yet to believe that He used evolution is to deny what God says He did in creating everything in six normal-length days. It also denies that He created a perfect universe, perfect world, and a perfect first man and woman (who was made from the man).

Genesis 1:31 states that everything God made was “very good.” Since 1 Corinthians 15:26 calls death the “last enemy” that will be destroyed, how could we possibly think that God called death very good? Why did Jesus (who is the same yesterday, today, and forever according to Hebrews 13:8) heal the sick and raise the dead if sicknesses and death are very good?

If God used evolution, then it logically follows that death and disease were His doing rather than ours, and Jesus would have been sent to cover God’s mistakes.

If God used evolution, then it logically follows that death and disease were His doing rather than ours, and Jesus would have been sent to cover God’s mistakes. That is, if the Lord gave the first spark of energy and life to the universe, and then let it run amok, He would have sent His Son to atone for His own mistakes. This is not an accurate description of the God of the Bible.

answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/the-god-of-old-earth/

Why not set your pride aside and just accept it His way?

if you really accepted it His way you would be able to give verses showing how it was His way. I can. And do.


biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201&version=NASB1995

YEC proven Bioevo defeated!





Here's something to chew on:

From an Evolutionist’s Perspective​

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular ["]scientific["] thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

In his essay “Lights of the Church and Science,” Huxley stated,

I am fairly at a loss to comprehend how anyone, for a moment, can doubt that Christian theology must stand or fall with the historical trustworthiness of the Jewish Scriptures. The very conception of the Messiah, or Christ, is inextricably interwoven with Jewish history; the identification of Jesus of Nazareth with that Messiah rests upon the interpretation of the passages of the Hebrew Scriptures which have no evidential value unless they possess the historical character assigned to them. If the covenant with Abraham was not made; if circumcision and sacrifices were not ordained by Jahveh; if the ‘ten words’ were not written by God’s hand on the stone tables; if Abraham is more or less a mythical hero, such as Theseus; the Story of the Deluge a fiction; that of the Fall a legend; and that of the Creation the dream of a seer; if all these definite and detailed narratives of apparently real events have no more value as history than have the stories of the regal period of Rome—what is to be said about the Messianic doctrine, which is so much less clearly enunciated: And what about the authority of the writers of the books of the New Testament, who, on this theory, have not merely accepted flimsy fictions for solid truths, but have built the very foundations of Christian dogma upon legendary quicksands?2

Huxley [the Evolution beliver]made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

Huxley was definitely out to destroy the truth of the biblical record. When people rejected the Bible, he was happy.

Hux was Darwin's Bulldog. You like Darwin's ideas a lot. Mabye you will like Huxley's.

IF EVOLUTION IS GOD'S CREATION, EXPLAIN THIS.

 

[KV-44-v1]

"Genetics, anatomy, and a very large number of transitional forms show humans to have evolved from other primates."

I thought you said that humans didn't evolve from apes or a common ancestor.

 

[Barbarian]

St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of the creation story could not be literal days.

He simply said that all the days happened in only 1 day.

No. You should probably read it and see what he actually wrote.

The people who misled you confused evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution, not evolution itself. Evolution is something we see happening in populations all around us. Common descent is what happens over long periods of time.

Do you believe in common descent or not?

One doesn't "believe in" natural phenomena. One just notes the facts. We can test this by looking at genes of organisms of known descent. Always works.

There is exactly 0 verification for old earth.

You've been badly misled by people who knew no more than you do. Here's a place to learn about it in simplified language:

How Old Is Earth and How Did Scientists Figure It Out?​

How Old Is Earth and How Did Scientists Figure It Out?

In 1953, CalTech geochemist Clair Patterson came up with an estimate for Earth's age that still holds today.

science.howstuffworks.com

Because the God revealed in Scripture created a perfect world, a world with no death, suffering, or disease.

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that anywhere. He said it was "very good" not "perfect."
Genesis 1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

You've put words in His mouth to make the Bible fit your desires. Why not set your pride aside and just accept it His way?

if you really accepted it His way you would be able to give verses showing how it was His way.

I have. You just aren't willing to accept what He's saying to you. This is why you feel the need to change His word to fit yourself.

The leading humanist of Darwin’s day, Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), eloquently pointed out the inconsistencies of reinterpreting Scripture to fit with popular ["]scientific["] thinking. Huxley, an ardent evolutionary humanist, was known as “Darwin’s bulldog,” as he did more to popularize Darwin’s ideas than Darwin himself. Huxley understood Christianity much more clearly than did compromising theologians who tried to add evolution and millions of years to the Bible. He used their compromise against them to help his cause in undermining Christianity.

You were fooled there, too. Huxley was an agnostic who admitted that nothing in science ruled out God. Again, you've been fooled by people who knew no more than you do. Darwin, as you know, attributed the creation of life to God. Would you like me to show you again?

Huxley [the Evolution beliver]made the point that if we are to believe the New Testament doctrines, we must believe the historical account of Genesis as historical truth.

I notice that YE creationists are like atheists and agnostics in believing that one must accept all of the Bible as literal history. Most Christians do not agree with atheists and creationists on this issue.

Hux was Darwin's Bulldog. You like Darwin's ideas a lot. Mabye you will like Huxley's.

Like Darwin, I think God created life on Earth. You and Huxley seem to be in agreement on many things. Which is something I've noticed among creationits. Once YE creationists start compromising with God's word, some of them do eventually become atheists.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

“From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’ A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, “Wait a minute. There has to be one!” But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now, but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

Why I Left Young-Earth Creationism

In memory of Glenn Morton (1950-2020), Peaceful Science is republishing his personal account and testimony of leaving Young-Earth Creationism.

peacefulscience.org

This is the real damage YE does to God's Church. As we've discussed earlier, evolution is consistent with God's word and is part of God's creation. We've shown you this before. Don't let pride pull you astray.

 

[Barbarian]

Even speciation is not the same as evolution, and variation in the gene pool is not great evidence of evolution.

No, that's wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population. Speciation is what is known as "macroevolution", a change in allele frequencies sufficient for the evolution of a new kind of organism, a species of its own.

Variation happens—no serious scientist dismisses that. However, there are limits to how far that variation will go. The limits are the boundaries of the biblical kinds.

As you demonstrated, you are unable to give a testable definition of "biblical kind." But you might be able to show us a population that has reached the limit of variation and can evolve no further. What do you have?

Even some evolutionists will admit to these limitations, including Stephen Jay Gould, perhaps one of the most preeminent evolutionists of the twentieth century. When speaking of marine invertebrates, for example, Gould recognized there was no new information being added.

No, that's wrong. You've confused variation with information. Every new mutation adds genetic information to a population. Would you like me to show you that math for a simple example? BTW, Gould mentioned forams and ammonites as examples of gradual evolution over long periods in the fossil record. Would you like me to show you that?

Nothing in Darwin's theory or any modern theory of evolution says that it must lead to continuing "improvement" whatever that means. We can only say that evolution tends to make populations better fitted to their environments. Part of your problem is typical of YE creationists; people who think they hate evolution really don't know very much about it.

 

[Barbarian]

I thought you said that humans didn't evolve from apes or a common ancestor.

No, I didn't say that. I said that neither humans nor chimps evolved from each other. Both of them evolved from a common ancestor that was neither chimpanzee nor human. This goes back to your issue we talked about earlier; you don't know enough about the phenomenon of evolution to understand what it is.

 

[Barbarian]

Seventh-day Adventism professes to teach salvation by grace through faith, but they redefine this to add works to grace.

So they don't believe God in James 2:

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Didn't know that.