Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Bob

I have an even bigger challenge to your hydraulic sorting assertion. There is a topic which is quite important to scientists but that does not get much mention in debates such as this. (Except that it is the source of an infamous bit of young earther quote mining.) Some consider biogeography to be an even more important indicator of evolution than the fossil record. Here is a challenge for you from biogeography.

Explain how the hydraulic sorting of the flood would have led to what we see. I'll use Australia for an example. Because of its isolation, Australia has a very unique collection of fauna. It has many marsupials and very few placentals for an obvious one. Just how did all those fossil marsupials get buried in Australia just where the later creatures settled? It does not make any sense.

 

So it boils down to your interpreation is right and mine is wrong. To prove it, you will reassert your opinion and deny that you need to address the overwhelming evidence that refutes your position. I assert that this is clear evidence that you have "admitt[ed] defeat in the scientific arena."

"Every expert has confirmed this was a full bird."

Oh really! That is news to me. I think if you were to go and ask these experts they would all agree to what a fine example of a transitional creature archy really is. Do I need to dig up the scores of traits that archy has that are shared by NTHER living birds but which were clearly shared with the theropod dinosaurs?

Let's see what one of the leading bird experts has to say about archy.

Alan Feduccia

 

I'm curious what you think these verses are saying. Are you implying that God was also displeased with the violence among animals? Why, then, were the sharks and other fish spared in the flood? If all flesh was corrupt, why was some flesh (sea life) spared? Could it be that you're reading more into the text than you should?

If you insist that this passage is an exhaustive list of the only permitted food sources before the flood, does that mean at this time fish weren't allowed to eat anything? Birds, land animals, creeping things and humans are all given food in Genesis 1, but fish are not. Why not?

In that case, there was also no digestion before the fall, which makes one wonder why God said anything about what they could eat. Without entropy, there would be no need for sustenance, since each living being could be a perpetual motion machine. A plainer reading of the text would seem to indicate that digestion, along with the processes of entropy it implies, were part of what God declared "good" in his creation.

If you connect Romans 5 with animal death, then you must also connect Jesus' sacrifice with animal's salvation. The message of the text is clearly that just as death came to all through Adam, grace and new life came to all through Jesus Christ. If the death applied to animals, so must the grace and new life. Are you willing to distort the gospel that far just to have more ammo against evolution?

Indeed. That means that it would not use modern science, since it must also be understood by its original audience. It used the "science" and ideas of the world that were common in the time it was written, and used that to convey God's message which is eternal.

I believe God chose not to reveal the historical details of creation because (a) they'd be so shockingly different from what people believed at the time that they'd overwhelm the actual message God was conveying, and (b) part of humanity's purpose is to subdue the earth, and that includes learning about it. If God revealed the historical details of creation, he'd spoil a lot of the joy and awe of discovery that has come from great advances through the ages. Nobody likes a wiseguy who spoils all the best parts of a movie, so why should God ruin all the surprises he had (and still has) in store for us in creation?

God did not write the Bible to the extent of dictating the precise language. God inspired holy men of old to write the Bible. What they wrote is exactly what God wants us to have, but it comes from a partnership between human authors and God, not from God's dictation.

 

Mercury



Good post.

 

Bob said - "What a lovely way to complete change the subject when your argument has slid from the rediculous to the sublimely ludicrous. Expect to see yourself reminded of this flawed point in your argument again."

Indeed the evidence is in - it "only works one way" and that is left handed. We ahve "no evidence at all" that a random distribution of chiral orientations works - AT All -- Period.

And yet the random distribution "result" in experiment after experiment is ALL that we get.

The evidence is "in", the "science is in" the guesswork is "out", especially "guesswork" saying "well maybe, hopefully, possibly it DOES work some other way".

Your clining to pure hope and myth - is duely noted.

Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again

Do you think that God never uses natural means, under His control, to accomplish His will? If you think He does, then what is your problem with my reasoning?

What specifically do chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution and how do they do so? (See, you did not answer this question, although you sort of addressed it. You did not tell me what chiral compounds prevent from happening in evolution nor did you tell me how you know that all life has always used left handed compounds only. I assert that today life uses only lefthanded amino acids because the enzyme that is used to make the amino acids is left handed. I also assert the proteins can be made from any mixture of left and right handed proteins. The only reason that life today cannot use this compounds is because of that enzyme that is so useful in making the amino acids is left handed so all the chiral chemistry becomes left handed.)

What specifically does entropy prevent from happening in evolution and how does it do so?

Where did those LTRs come from and why do we share them with the other apes?

How exactly does this sorting work where the same thing is sorted to many different layers and things with the same shape and density are sorted completely differently?

How is that biogeophaphy works? Why do we find living species in places where their ancestors in the fossil record lived? I am speaking especially of the unique fauna that result from geographic isolation. The Australian marsupials for example.

 

Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood.

This seems "obvious". God made mankind "From the beginning" as we see in Mark 10 and then as we see in Gen 6 God himself destroys mankind and even the violent land animals at the flood.

But certainly your question has no bearing on Christ's clear and obvious statement in Mark 10.

You know - the subject of this thread.

Well said - see Isaiah 65 for another clear example of this ecosystem and how it works.

True - very true - it's details are trustworthy and correct.

Smoke - but no light.

Do you "actually have a point"?

Or are you claiming that if "fish ate we don't need to trust those things that the Bible actually says"??

Which is it?

Digestion does not require "genetic error". In fact effective metabolism is by design, intelligence - the work of the creator alone.

Hello! Anybody home?

True again. Romans 5 makes the point well. As does Romans 8 speaking of all creaetion suffering, death and decay.

Not if you actually read the Bible. Romans 5 speaks of death both in the UNQUALIFIED and in the qualified sense "to all mankind".

Gup20 is correct.

And Romans 8 makes it clear that the application extends all the way to nature - AND The the ultimate fix - extends all the way to nature.

Christ is coming to make an earth "The NEW EARTH" that works as Isaiah 65 states it will - with the wolf and the lamb in harmony and the lion eating straw.

The Word of God is trustworthy.

We can believe it after all.

Mark 10 is true as well - showing that God MADE man and woman FROM the biginning.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Indeed the evidence is in - it "only works one way" and that is left handed. We ahve "no evidence at all" that a random distribution of chiral orientations works - AT All -- Period.

Are you asserting the proteins can not be made if they contain right handed proteins? Are you asserting that proteins using right handed compounds could not have been used by life even if there was a time in the past where they were not limited to left handed only amino acids?

"Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether."

Can we attempt to keep this civil, please? I did not comment on the second use of "evilution" above but I find that unnecessary.

 

"Dig in the earth and "See with your eyes" the violent land animals that were around pre-flood that are not around post-flood."

Maybe you'll answer this. Which layers are preflood and which are post flood? Also, do you maintain that all animals were vegetarian before the flood as Gup20 does?

 

"Digestion does not require "genetic error". In fact effective metabolism is by design, intelligence - the work of the creator alone."

But entropy is involved and Gup20 claimed that entropy may not have applied at that point.

 

Where do you get this idea that it was the violent land animals that were destroyed rather than all land animals? Also, why do you think they were totally wiped out, rather than being preserved on the ark as Genesis says? It seems as though you are using what you "see with your eyes" to argue against a clear reading of Genesis. You also didn't address my question, which is why the violent sea animals were not similarly punished.

That's the same logic that leads to people thinking the days of Genesis 1 are not intended to be normal days. Context defines terms, and the context of Romans 5 repeatedly stresses that human death is being referred to. Nowhere are animals referenced, and while you can claim that death may mean something more than human death, that is an idea you bring from outside the text, not an idea you get from the text itself.

Verse 12 opens the passage in question and clarifies that the death is human death. Verse 15 shows that just as many died by the trespass of the one man, so God's grace and the gift of Jesus overflowed to the many. Obviously, the "many" are human beings, unless you're arguing that Jesus died for animals too. Verse 17 drives this point home again. Verse 18 reiterates it again. Verse 19 repeats it once more. Where exactly do you think Paul makes a detour to talking about animal death?

 

"Where do you get this idea that it was the violent land animals that were destroyed rather than all land animals? Also, why do you think they were totally wiped out, rather than being preserved on the ark as Genesis says?"

I seem to have overlooked that. Good point.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

 

"For example - the Grand Canyon. Geologists have always thought that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be carved away by the Colorado River. However, that idea has been now challenged by such events such as the Burlingame Canyon near Walla Walla, Washington which was OBSERVED to be formed in 6 days! A 120 foot deep canyon in 6 days!AiG Article"

Impressive. Let's quote from AIG. "The eroded strata consisted of rather soft sand and clay saturated by the recent rains. The dewatering of the saturated sediments into the now-open ditch enhanced the erosion. The rapidly moving water could both dislodge the particles and carry them down stream, leaving underlying sediments vulnerable to erosion. In total, these six days of runaway ditch erosion removed nearly five million cubic feet of silt, sand, and rock." So, wet sands and clays that were already saturated with water were eroded into a small canyon in a few days. Could you please tell me what the relevence is to the Grand Canyon?

First, you are talking a difference in the volume of about ninety million! So, at these great rates of erosion, it would have taken ... about 1.5 millions years to erode the Grand Canyon. Hmmm.

Second, the Grand Canyon is eroded in rock, including shales, limestones, and sandstones, not soft, wet clay.

Third, let me quote AIG again. "In recent years, scientists have disproved that idea, leaning now on a great volume of water rushing through the area at a high velocity not very long ago which carved the canyon." I think this is a deliberate mistatement. I would like to know who these scientists are and read their papers. Can you direct me to the abstracts or the full, published papers? AIG did not bother to cite any references for that claim. I wonder why?

 

Details are never the friend of evolutionists. The claim about animals not killing - was NOT a claim about events up to the point of the Flood but rather a reference to the pre-fall pre-sin earth. Hence the entire point of Romans 5 and Romans 8.

Remember?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Simple: I observe their extinction and destruction as part of the flood event.

I did not say "all land animals were not destroyed".

Details.

Certain land animals were specific to the violence God describes in Genesis 6. They did not make it on the ark. No T-Rex with Noah.

God's Word is correct when it says that all flesh had been corrupted and specifically directed judgment against land animals.

As "odd" as that may seem to most evolutionists today.

This is simply admitting to the fact of the text. Observing "the details".

Hardly.

Rather it is the same logic that leads Bible believing Christians to accept the ONE day really is composed of ONE evening and ONE morning.

It is the same logic that leads them to believe that the 7 days of Gen 1-2:3 are really seven days.

It is the same logic that leads Bible believing Christians to see perfect harmony in the summary of the Gen 1-2:3 event that God provides in Exodus 20:8-11 wiht language "details" used in Gen 1-2:3.

Romans 8 "ALL creation suffers and groans" due to that "EVENT" identified in Romans 5.

Paul shows how BOTH fallen mankind and ALL creation on this earth suffer due to the fall and how BOTH benefit in the Gospel plan where the saints are rescued.

Too late to hope that Romans does not address it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am simply observing - confessing - admittint that emperical science SHOWS that when we LOOK at creation we SEE that random chiral distributions DO NOT WORK for proteins used in all living cells. I am saying that "good science" SHOWS what chiral orientation works.

I am simply abserving that evolution consitently and forevery - opposes good science. It pits vagery and speculative obscurity against good emperical science - time after time after time - and the chiral orientation of amino acids in living cells is a perfect example.

So far your arguments only serve to make the point.

And your proclivity to using your own guesswork as a kind of "verified historic fact" in leu of actual science and "discovery" is ... instructive for anyone wantint to understand the mind set of evolutionists.

No such easter bunny UTEOTW - you simply dream it in hopes that clining to evolutionisms mythologies will not prove too embarassing.


====================================
Bob said
"Then calling your hope speculation "evidence" is beyond fascinating as a study in human nature and what happens when one has run out of science altogether."


This is just a fact about the factless nature of your "I hope in the too distant past some data favorable to evolution might have been observable" - style of non-science argument.

Sorry - I mean evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Was it only certain kinds of land animals that God became angry with?

Genesis 6:12-13: "God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. Then God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.' " Verse 17 continues: "Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish."

Did some land animals not make it onto the ark?

Genesis 6:19-20: "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."

Maybe Gup20 can answer my earlier questions from a biblical perspective. That is, after all, what I was looking for.

 

The obvious and clear point is to ask you to RESPOND to your OWN claims about scripture since they are contradictory and conflicted to this point.

Though in defense you "want" to ignore that weakness in your statements so far and ONLY respond with your OWN views of God - NOT with your OWN views of what you claim SCRIPTURE says about God. (which is in fact the point)

Will you "continue" to dodge the point?

No. You have dodged the question repeatedly as I just explained. You seem to prefer NOT to address what YOU have said that SCRIPTURE says.

You prefer NOT to address your "too ignorant for the truth" argument about WHY God used CREATIONIST models to describe ORIGINS.

You prefer NOT to address your OWN "Scripture ONLY says God created in some way" statements because IF that is ALL God said in scripture THEN the "too ignorant" argument was either pointless - OR it is a statement that EVEN saying God is Creator is not actually true but JUST a falshood given to the ignorant.

So far - you have not been able to resolve this - so you continue to dodge by NOT answering what you claimed to find in scripture and how that applied to ignorant peoples of the past.

Notice how you "do it again"?

Notice - not a SINGLE reference to scripture or to "Scripture ONLY says..." or to "SCRIPTURE says this ... because they were too ignorant"??

You ignore the entire subject

Again - we "See" that you simply state what YOU believe about God - you do not "Clarify" what YOU admitted that SCRIPTURE says about God and why it says it. Rather you seek to dodge the point.

So 6 evenings and mornings - six days - with God REALLY creating the VERY things listed on EACH of those days?

Plants before the Sun and moon? (One whole day before)?

Are you "sure" you are ready to "go along with scripture"?

I can't believe I am seeing this now "third position" of yours as it relates to WHAT scripture says!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

For evolutionists this is where they claim "We believe in the doctrines of evolutionism IN SPITE of what you have pointed out from scripture."

It is instructive to anyone wanting to understand the perspective of evolutionism.

In Christ,

Bob