The lie of evolution, part II

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Well, you completely missed MY point . . which is that we can sloganeer each other all day long and so what? SLOGANS won't settle a thing.

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.

It is intellectually dishonest to say we've got anything else. All we have is our interpretation of the facts and our interpretation of the Bible and we are absolutely stuck with making the best possible interpretation we can of each.

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.

In addition to forming new hypotheses all the time, there are things that science establishes. After getting some things established, science builds on those to find new areas where things remain more hypothetical. Then science pins those areas down and procedes to even newer areas of hypotheticals.

Your problem is you are confusing what is established with what is hypothetical.

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.

Craig is in touch with what has been firmly established and what remains hypothetical.

Then he should talk like it here.

Craig is aware of the depth of evidence that disproves the YEC hypothesis. It has been disproved.

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

People really do report having crises of faith when they realize they have been misled by their religion about the age of the earth, or about the common descent of all life.

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.

And of course their are others who never even give your witness of the gospel a chance, believing as they do that since you are out of touch with reality in the sciences, why think you are in touch spiritually?

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.

I'm not saying they are justified to think like that, I am merely saying one can understand how they can think like that.

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" referred to by Paul of Tarsus is problem enough to share with people. We don't need to ADD to their problems.

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.

 

[Petrel]

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*

 

[UTEOTW]

"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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You're dumping tons of fresh water into the oceans. The ocean salinity would be drastically lowered. Many marine animals require very specific water conditions. If there was a literal global flood I'd expect all fish not able to survive long periods in brackish to fresh water to die. Definitely all corals would die--buried under thousands of feet of water for up around a year! Following the Flood there would be an ice age due to the overlying fresh water stopping the ocean currents. . . Of course this is making the generous assumption that condensing that much water or releasing that much water by geothermal processes wouldn't poach all marine lifeforms and steam alive Noah and all of the animals. [Big Grin]

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.

I've already addressed the arbitrariness of the kind cutoff line

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.

Why would God be so arbitrary in creating animals? It makes no sense!

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.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
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.

 

[Phillip]

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

 

[Petrel]

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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're dumping tons of fresh water into the oceans. The ocean salinity would be drastically lowered. Many marine animals require very specific water conditions. If there was a literal global flood I'd expect all fish not able to survive long periods in brackish to fresh water to die. Definitely all corals would die--buried under thousands of feet of water for up around a year! Following the Flood there would be an ice age due to the overlying fresh water stopping the ocean currents. . . Of course this is making the generous assumption that condensing that much water or releasing that much water by geothermal processes wouldn't poach all marine lifeforms and steam alive Noah and all of the animals. [Big Grin]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

 

[blackbird]

Originally posted by Petrel:
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.

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??

 

[Craigbythesea]

blackbird wrote,

I believe the Bible to be literally true.

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.

 

[Helen]

OK, let's take a look at the way things USED to be, Craig, not the way they are now. The past cannot be judged by the present. The present is judged by the past.

On day three, then the land rose out of the water, there would have been a great deal of material washed off the land as it rose. This would have contained salts. This was probably the initial salinization of the earth's waters. The resulting waters were probably brackish -- not 'fresh' and not 'salty'.

The first fish were therefore 'in the middle.' They also had the same plasticity in their genomes (ability to vary) as all the other original kinds.

In Genesis 7:11 we read that ALL the fountains burst forth at once. This indicates a critical pressure had been reached under the crust. This pressure would have been caused by the heating of the earth's interior by radioactive elements, as both short and long half-life elements were all decaying at once at first. This heat would have driven out water from the rocks.

These waters, finally bursting forth, would have brought up with them incredible amounts of pulverized materials, including a variety of minerals and salts which were dissolved in the ocean.

In other words, the Flood did not add fresh water to the seas, but salty. Undoubtedly a great number of marine organisms died, but because ocean currents even today do not homogenize the oceans, there still would have been large areas of brackish water after the flood. And perhaps large areas of relatively fresh waters and large areas of very salty waters.

And just like all over the world, natural selection took its toll, eliminating those members of populations which could not survive in the environments in which they found themselves.

But it is also true that the earlier populations were far more robust than now, as natural selection deletes from the population's genome until the population becomes quite fragile.

You are trying to use the fragility of these populations today to show the Flood was not real. However not only is your view of what the Flood did in error, you are also wrong in assuming that today's species are like yesterday's.

The Flood of Noah was real and the eyewitness acocunts are in Genesis. In addition, memories of this Flood exist in every ancient culture, often wrapped up with mythological elements, but there nevertheless.

God has told us about the reality He created. You just refuse to believe either His Word or the evidence around you. Why? What do you have to lose by believing God?

 

[RTG]

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

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:


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.

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 ]

 

[Craigbythesea]

Helen wrote,

OK, let's take a look at the way things USED to be, Craig, not the way they are now. The past cannot be judged by the present. The present is judged by the past.

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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

AntennaFarmer wrote,

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 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.

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.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by AntennaFarmer:
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.

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.

But it is also true that the earlier populations were far more robust than now, as natural selection deletes from the population's genome until the population becomes quite fragile.

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.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
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.

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.

 

[Craigbythesea]

AntennaFarmer wrote,

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.

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

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
]Let’s get real here! Neither Helen nor Genesis write of “rain alone” causing the flood.

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.