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

[KV-44-v1]

Your revision of Genesis to make it literal doesn't change it. Let God decide.


To maintain your new beliefs, you have to reject physics, genetics, geology, astronomy... No point in denying the fact.

If science was like that, I'd hate it as much as you do. Science doesn't reject miracles. It just follows evidence where there is evidence. Your problem is fixable. Go learn about it and then you can talk intelligently about it.

Most likely, I was studying Genesis before you were born.

(species defined)
A population of interbreeding animals. This is the major problem creationists have. If creationism were true; there'd be nice, neat divisions between species, between genera and so on. But there are all sorts of half-species and so on. This, as Darwin pointed out, is strong evidence for biological evolution. But it's an unsolvable mystery for creationists.


They are evidence of a common ancestor. "Created kind" is just an imaginary idea you added to it All evolved organisms are created. You just don't like the way God does it.


Nope. Remember when I told you not knowing anything about evolution was hurting you? It just did again. New alleles appear all the time, and as you learned add genetic information. Want some examples?


Evolution is God's direct action. It's His creation, after all. Set your pride aside and let Him have it His way.

Nope. Think back. What did I tell you? Did you forget? The Earth brought forth living things. Not poofed, but made by natural means. Evolution just explains how that happened.


Yep. You just don't approve of the way He did it. We got that.

Wrong. God is no mere "designer." Humans must design. God creates. Have some respect for God. And as you learned, evolution is observed happening in all populations, including humans. Would you like some examples?


We call them "transitionals." And even honest creationists admit that there are many of them:

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, thetitanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three 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

(regarding genetic identication of common descent)
Nope. We can do it on a lineage of animals for which we have documentation of descent. It always works.


No.
Show your work. If you don't know how to measure genetic gain, just say so, and I'll show you.


Genetic information is found by summing the products of the frequency of each allele by the log of the frequency of each allele.
So for two alleles, each 0.5 frequency, the information is 2(fa x log(fa)) or about 0,30
If mutation produces a third allele that so that we have three alleles with a frequency each of 0.3333, then the information is 3(fa x log(fa)) or about 0.47.

Which is an increase. I used the above numbers to make it simpler for you, but if you'd like different frequencies, I could do that for you as well.


It works the same way. And yes, if an allele is lost, the information decreases. In many cases, speciation occurs by reducing information, and subsequent new mutations. This is usually the way speciation happens. Would you like to learn why?


Babies are born. You realize that each of us is a creature of God, do you not?

Lol. I am not revising, it is you.

nope. it is you who have to reject entropy. I hate it when evolutionists try to use ALL OF science as a shield for bioevo. It is one of their biggest strawmen.

Your posts show no evidence of a long time reading of Genesis.

Created kind is imaginary? ROFL.
The biblical concept of created “kind” probably most closely corresponds to the family level in the current taxonomy. A good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated, but this is a good quick measure of a “kind.”

There can be a tremendous amount of variation within a created kind. For example, various types of dogs, such as wolves, dingoes, coyotes, jackals, and domestic dogs, can often breed with one another. When dogs breed together, you get dogs—so there is a dog kind.

Not knowing that you attempt to serve 2 masters (God and evolution) is what hurts you.
Either serve a cobbler god of bioevo or the Creator God Who is omnipotent.
Why do you think that God's Creation is called creation and not evolution?? your compromise defies logic.

 

[KV-44-v1]

You have, so far, only tried to "prove" genetic gain with math. That is all whataboutism. All theory no practice.

 

[KV-44-v1]

why some Christians want to add millions of years into Scripture? It’s not because the Bible is unclear. It’s because they’ve been influenced by evolutionary ideas to believe that millions of years are fact so we must somehow, some way squeeze them into the Bible. But we should never start with something outside the Bible and force it into the Bible. That’s called eisegesis. Rather, we start with Scripture and interpret the evidence through the lens of the true history of the world. And that’s called exegesis.

When a little child reads the Bible, evolutionary ideas will not enter his mind at all.
If evolution were Biblical then the early church would believe it. Christians before erasmus darwin would widely accept it.


One big problem with trying to add millions of years into the Bible is the order of events in Genesis. You see, according to God’s Word, earth is created first, covered in water. But in the evolutionary story, earth isn’t formed until billions of years after the beginning, and it begins as a hot, molten blob. In the biblical account, the stars and other heavenly bodies are created on day four of creation week—which is after the earth, the atmosphere, and land plants were created. In the evolutionary story, the stars and eventually our sun form billions of years before earth, and once earth forms, plant life is still a long way from evolving! And those are just a few of the differences between the order of events!

 

[follower]

Barbarian
Ah yes, because the pandas thumb is a perfectly reliable blog. /s
Evidence from his works?

Creationists think such, perhaps more so than evolutionists.
is this true??
What else did he believe??

who is more powerful: a God Who created life without needing to cobble it together, or your god??
Try not to be ironic challenge (impossible)

There is NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE the Genesis 1-11 account is allegory. Mabye i should take your words as allegory, and when you insist that they are literal, I'll say that you refuse to take your words as they are!!
source?
This <the false teachings and ungodly ideas> is so upside down inside out backwards and illogical.

I cannot see the statements you are replying to, only your replies.
In Christ Jesus I agree with all your replies to the ungodly false teacher immersed in paganism (apparently).

 

[Uncle J]

why some Christians want to add millions of years into Scripture? It’s not because the Bible is unclear. It’s because they’ve been influenced by evolutionary ideas to believe that millions of years are fact so we must somehow, some way squeeze them into the Bible. But we should never start with something outside the Bible and force it into the Bible. That’s called eisegesis. Rather, we start with Scripture and interpret the evidence through the lens of the true history of the world. And that’s called exegesis.

When a little child reads the Bible, evolutionary ideas will not enter his mind at all.
If evolution were Biblical then the early church would believe it. Christians before erasmus darwin would widely accept it.


One big problem with trying to add millions of years into the Bible is the order of events in Genesis. You see, according to God’s Word, earth is created first, covered in water. But in the evolutionary story, earth isn’t formed until billions of years after the beginning, and it begins as a hot, molten blob. In the biblical account, the stars and other heavenly bodies are created on day four of creation week—which is after the earth, the atmosphere, and land plants were created. In the evolutionary story, the stars and eventually our sun form billions of years before earth, and once earth forms, plant life is still a long way from evolving! And those are just a few of the differences between the order of events!

So what I hear you saying is that if someone looks into the science behind evolution and the age of the earth/universe, and finds it to be compelling, they are therefore required to reject the Bible and Christianity.

Is that really the choice you want to present to people you're trying to convert?

 

[Barbarian]

Lol. I am not revising, it is you.

I see your denial. But your attempts to revise scripture are out here for everyone to see.

it is you who have to reject entropy.

As you just demonstrated, you don't understand what entropy is or how it works. But let's give you another chance. Show me one process, required for evolution that is ruled out by "entropy." Show your calculations. Prediction; we aren't going to see anything like that.

Your posts show no evidence of a long time reading of Genesis.

To be honest with you, you don't seem to have read it at all.

Created kind is imaginary?

Yep. But if you doubt this, show us a testable definition for "created kind."

The biblical concept of created “kind” probably most closely corresponds to the family level in the current taxonomy.

Creationists are all over the map on this. Most seem to say "genus" but others say "species", "family" or even higher taxa.

A good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated, but this is a good quick measure of a “kind.”

So, the "cat kind" is really several kinds? You sure? You just defined "species." You can only offer vague definitions, because your notion of "created kinds" is an imaginary thing. Not knowing that you attempt to serve 2 masters (God and creationism) is what hurts you.

Why do you think that God's Creation is called creation and not evolution??

For the same reason it's called creation and not gravity. Creation is all of it. Gravity and evolution are just to phenomena that are part of creation. This is why it seems like you've never even read Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

You have, so far, only tried to "prove" genetic gain with math.

"Information" is a mathematical concept. Thought you knew that. This goes back to you not knowing what you're talking about in this discussion. How else would you determine information?

That is all whataboutism.

And you clearly don't know what "whataboutism" means. Look it up.

All theory no practice.

You're wrong there, too. For example information theory doesn't just show how new mutations increase information in populations. It is used to show how to make the internet work and how to make a transmitted message as accurate as needed. All practice with the theory.

 

[KV-44-v1]

So what I hear you saying is that if someone looks into the science behind evolution and the age of the earth/universe, and finds it to be compelling, they are therefore required to reject the Bible and Christianity.

Is that really the choice you want to present to people you're trying to convert?

You can only believe/serve one master. actual science or Pseudoscience. The Bible's Genesis account or fantastical theories on how "LifE aRoSe".
science was actually another term for knowledge, btw.

 

[Barbarian]

You can only believe/serve one master. actual science or Pseudoscience.

I know science; you serve pseudoscience. We all get it. I notice you used the word "entropy", but when I asked you do define it, and show us even one process necessary for evolution that was ruled out by entropy, you declined to do that. We all know why

The Bible's Genesis account or fantastical theories on how "LifE aRoSe".

God says that life was brought forth by the earth as He intended. All the evidence we've found so far, indicates that He's right. I believe Him. You should, too.

science was actually another term for knowledge, btw.

Meanings change. If you don't use words as they are used by others, you'll always have trouble.

When a little child reads the Bible, evolutionary ideas will not enter his mind at all.

1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Paul is speaking to you. Set aside your own wishes and thoughts and just accept God's word as it is. And you won't be troubled any longer.

 

[Barbarian]

Ah yes, because the pandas thumb is a perfectly reliable blog.

Show us something that you think shows them to be unreliable, and we'll examine that. What do you have?

Darwin saw other races as intelligent and deserving of rights.

Evidence from his works?

The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate – Charles Darwin The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.– Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887

We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. Charles Darwin The Voyage of the Beagle

Creationists think such, perhaps more so than evolutionists.

Let's take a look...
Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
YE creationist and ICR co-founder Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World 1997

is this true??

Yep.

What else did he believe??

YE creationism. He had been convinced by a Seventh-Day Adventist missionary to accept the visions of their "prophetess." (YE creationism)

In fact, St. Augustine pointed out that the "days" of creation could not be literal days, over a thousand years before Darwin. C'mon.

source?

What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine.
St. Augustine, The City of God

Ultimately, Augustine affirms that ordinary 24-hours days “are not at all like [the days of Genesis 1], but very, very different.”
De Genesi ad litteram 4.27.44

Creationism is a rejection of His creation. As you see, creationism rejects His creation, even to observed phenomena like evolution.

 

[GodsGrace]

Since evolution is directly observed in populations constantly, I think your guys probably don't know what evolution is. I suppose they could be lying or deluded...

What do you think it is?


Pretty much everyone who looks. The key here is that you don't seem to know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?


Well, your fellow YE creationist do admit (in the words of one informed YE creationist) that the large number of fossil transitionals is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." But no, evolution is directly observed in living populations.

You don't know what evolution is, do you? Maybe it would be good to go find out?

Do you think, or is it generally accepted, that a person who believes one species cannot change into another species must also be a YEC??

 

[GodsGrace]

You have, so far, only tried to "prove" genetic gain with math. That is all whataboutism. All theory no practice.

So you're a YEC?

 

[follower]

When a little child reads the Bible, evolutionary ideas will not enter his mind at all.

This is true, and it was plainly accepted truth by everyone for thousands of years.

Note that regardless of whatever yec entailes,
Scripture shows plainly that life , including humans beginning with Adam and Eve,
started a very specific number of countable accurate years ago, period. No other options re life.

 

[Barbarian]

Do you think, or is it generally accepted, that a person who believes one species cannot change into another species must also be a YEC??

There are old Earth creationists. I think most of them accept that new species and genera evolve from other organisms. But there might be some as you describe.

 

[Barbarian]

This is true, and it was plainly accepted truth by everyone for thousands of years.

In fact, the Bible makes no claims about evolution one way or the other. Which makes sense, seeing as evolution is a process we see going on in populations everywhere.

 

[Barbarian]

So you're a YEC?

There are YECs who do admit that new mutations add information in a population.

 

[Barbarian]

Note that regardless of whatever yec entailes,
Scripture shows plainly that life , including humans beginning with Adam and Eve,
started a very specific number of countable accurate years ago, period. No other options re life.

Even if you make a large number of assumptions, there are only estimates from YECs on the age of the Earth.

 

[Uncle J]

You can only believe/serve one master. actual science or Pseudoscience. The Bible's Genesis account or fantastical theories on how "LifE aRoSe".
science was actually another term for knowledge, btw.

So yes, when seeking new converts you do indeed present it as a choice between science and Christianity.

Okay then.

 

[KV-44-v1]

So what I hear you saying is that if someone looks into the science behind evolution and the age of the earth/universe, and finds it to be compelling, they are therefore required to reject the Bible and Christianity.

Is that really the choice you want to present to people you're trying to convert?

Depends on what you mean by required.

 

[KV-44-v1]

So yes, when seeking new converts you do indeed present it as a choice between science and Christianity.

Okay then.

It's not science if it contradicts God's Word. It is PSEUDOscience.