The lie of evolution, part II

Exactly, but I don't know why you think I missed that. My point was that Craig's slogans prove nothing, no matter how many times he repeats them.

But what is not being done is the separation of facts from interpretation. For instance, we have a fossil record. That is a fact. The issue of hte age of hte fossil record is an interpretation. When someone says that the fossil record proves OEC, or disproves YEC, they are being intellectually dishonest, or misunderstanding what "prove" means.

Not at all. I know both, but Craig did not present both. Macro evolution is a hypothesis, not an established fact. The existence of a fossil record is a fact. How that fossil record got there is a hypothesis.

Then he should talk like it here.

No, it hasn't, and this is the intellectual dishonesty I am talking about. To say it has been disproved is just wrong.

Notice how you assume your conclusion. That's a bad argumentative technique, and again, intellectually dishonest. It just doesn't work in civilized conversation. When people are told that God's word isn't true, yes, it can cause a crisis of faith. When they are told that it is true, but that it really doesn't mean what it says, yes it can cause a crisis of faith. But those things are completely separate.

Notice that you have pinned everything on their "believing that I am out of touch with reality." Since when has what thye believed become the standard of truth? We keep going back to that; Craig argued that from the beginning; now you are. That is an invalid argument. If people believe the moon is a mirror, we would not grant it legitimacy. Belief is not the issue. Truth is.

And you can probably understand how people have a bad view of mankind because they have been told we came from animals. Talk about absurd and unproven. Talk about vastly inadequate to deal with the reality of humanity ... but it's a theory that keeps getting putting out there. And it leads people to think like they do.

The foolishness of the cross includes the biblical teaching about the fall of man and his sin problem. You don't have a gospel without it.

 

Pastor Larry, since you say that an ancient creation is just a flawed interpretation of the facts, could you give us an internally consistent explanation of how the facts are consistent with a young earth creation? We've repeatedly asked for this and not gotten much of a response.

Oh, and theistic evolutionists do not deny the fall of man and sin. *sigh*

 

"You just made a point that makes your theories fall apart."

You are quoting me out of context.

That statement was made with regard to Helen stating that the Earth's moon is the only moon in the solar system that was not captured after formation whose orbit is significantly inclined with regard to the equatorial plain of the planet which it orbits.

That was her claim. I was responding. You have taken it out of context.

 

Boy you used the right words ... generous assumption. Do you realize how full of assumptions you are? That is very very weak position to hold.

Arbitrary based on your presuppositions and lack of understanding. Why not admit what we all know ... That we don't have enough information to give a total explanation? We should continue to search for the explanation, but that certainly doesn't require the denial of the Genesis account. You are giving way too much credit to assumption and presupposition based on limited knowledge.

On waht basis do you call it arbitrary? Because you can't understand it? How far do you think that argument goes? It leads to everything we don't understand as being arbitrary. I totally reject the premise.

Without comment in depth on the rest, let me just challenge the assumptions you are making. These assumptions fly in teh face of biblical teaching about the authority and knowledge of God, about the nature of scriptural revelation, and about the abilities of man's mind. It makes the conclusions very tenuous.

Why wouldn't you assume that everything you just described is completely consistent with YEC? You have nothing but an arbitrary reason.

 

You claim that the evidence is consistent with a young earth creation, but you have not even made an attempt to justify your claims, for all of your vehemence.

I did start out assuming that the evidence was consistent with a young earth creation, but through research and thought I determined that assumption was completely wrong and that continuing to accept that model would be abusing the good sense that God gave me.

The fact that you apparently don't see the slightest bit of conflict with a young earth creation in any of the evidence just indicates to me that you lack understanding.

It is your opinion that theistic evolution causes theological problems. It is an opinion that I don't share.

I reject young earth creation because it requires willfully misinterpreting or ignoring the evidence and limiting God by making him a God of the Gaps whose power diminishes every time a gap is filled. It makes God arbitrary and deceitful, and makes investigation of the natural realm a pointless pursuit because nature lies and nothing is as it seems.

 

So when does the Bible quit becoming a book of fiction and begin to become a book of fact? Book and verse, please?

 

Define "fiction" and "fact."

I think Genesis 1-2 is nonliteral, as are many other portions of the Bible. That doesn't mean they're not factual.

I'm certain you don't think the entire Bible is strictly literal.

 

Every school boy who has had a salt water aquarium for any length of time knows from personal observation of the facts of life that a world-wide flood never occurred on the earth. If you want to know the truth about the story of Noah’s Ark, set up a 10 gallon saltwater aquarium yourself and see how difficult it is to keep the water chemistry stabilized enough to keep the marine life healthy. And once you have learned how to do that, do a radical water change, exchanging half of the saltwater for freshwater and see what happens to your fish! (Please don’t REALLY do this—you will kill the fish!)

And yes, Larry, I do know the difference between a structurally perfect argument and an argument structured to make a point in a forceful manner. But when I am debating with opponents who are willing to “prove” at any cost whatsoever that evolution is a lie, I am very willing to structure my arguments using the same structure of argument that Jesus used repeatedly in the Gospels and that Paul used repeatedly in his epistles.

 

I believe the Bible to be literally true. It is literal truth!! What the Bible has to say in Genesis 1-11 is truth---God tells us the truth and the truth is the flood covered the earth with judgment water that was real---that is in the past---but there is coming a day forward where the earth will be covered with God's judgment fire----how can you grasp the idea of world wide fire and cannot grasp the idea of worldwide flood??

 

blackbird wrote,

Set up a saltwater aquarium for yourself as I outlined above and you will see for yourself that your interpretation of Gen. 6 - 11 needs to be adjusted to bring it into conformity with the reality that God has created.

It doesn’t take rocket science or even a 7th grade science class for a child or a man who is honest with himself before God to know that Gen. 6 – 11 is NOT and can NOT be a literal account of an historic event.

 

Can the same school boys tell us the salt content of the the world water supply 4000 years ago?

 

The ocean isn't an aquarium Craig.

Salt water is denser than fresh water. If you add fresh water to a large body of salt water you will find that the salt water remains at the bottom. Fresh water is at the top with a mixing layer in between. It can take quite a while for the layers to merge.

A.F.

[ October 25, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: AntennaFarmer ]

 

Helen wrote,

We know for a fact that salinity of the oceans was the same 4,000 – 5,000 years ago as it is today because we still have the same fish and other marine life living in it!

If the ideas that you posted in the remainder of your post were true, it would require than the anatomy and the physiology of the fish and other marine life living 4,000 – 5,000 years ago were radically different than they are today, requiring a rate of macroevolution which is an impossibility.

From one side of you mouth you argue vehemently against evolution calling it a lie, and from the other side of your mouth you argue for a rate of macroevolution which is an impossibility!

And please don’t assume that we are so ridiculously stupid that we did not realize that you have totally evaded the subject of water chemistry except for one detail that you believe can be explained away by assuming an impossible rate of macroevolution.

 

AntennaFarmer wrote,

You are quite right! The ocean is NOT an aquarium! If a vast quantity of water was added to the ocean in the manner than Helen has claimed occurred, the water would have been very rapidly mixed, killing nearly everything very quickly.

You can put horses and cows in a boat and save them, at least temporarily, from a flood, but a world-wide flood would have absolutely destroyed not only the marine life, but also the freshwater life. The notion of a worldwide flood having taken place on this planet could not possibly be more ridiculous, and there is a nearly an infinite amount of data that incontrovertibly proves that such a flood did NOT occur.

 

Exactly why I said that the result of a global flood would be the cessation of ocean currents and an ice age.

The salt content of the ocean has been the same for hundreds of millions of years as it is in equilibrium.

Helen, you're adding a lot of sediment and hot water to the ocean with that hypothesis. Can you back up the idea that the salinity of the water released would be similar to ocean water? Considering the massive volume of hot water (once again assuming it doesn't just cook everything), how could the oceans retain enough oxygen to support life? How did filter feeders such as coral, sponges, and mussels survive being choked in suspended sediment, much less survive burial by it? How did corals survive being buried in thousands of feet of murky water for months on end?

Again, could you tell me whether you think all strata was laid down in the Flood, or is there a cutoff after which you think the strata was post-Flood? If there's a cutoff, please be specific which strata it is in the commonly accepted terminology.

Once again, we have shown multiple times that mutation is not soley detrimental and that there are mechanisms for adding information to the genome.

Don't suppose you have an answer to somatic hypermutation in B cells, do you? In these rapid mutation of genes is required for development of proper specificity and binding of antibodies.

 

Certainly rain alone wouldn't cause a lot of mixing. There could be considerable mixing near the coast due to the initial runoff from land. Shallow seas like the Mediterranean would likely be thoroughly mixed. However, the central ocean wouldn't mix rapidly except at the surface.

A.F.

 

AntennaFarmer wrote,

Let’s get real here! Neither Helen nor Genesis write of “rain alone” causing the flood.

 

Somatic Hypermutation in "B" cells: may play a part in "Human blood IgM "memory" B cells are circulating splenic marginal zone B cells harboring a prediversified immunoglobulin repertoire".

We saw some clouds to the West. It may rain in the Mohave Desert.

So what?

Now what?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

True, what is your take on the "fountains of the great deep?" Does that suggest (from a literal reading) isolated point sources?

Craig, feel free to comment on symbolism too.

A.F.