young earth Creationism .. again

[Lionz]

Where did you answer that?

[PLAYER57832]

Where did you answer that?

No more cheats. Either you go back and read (I answered that in several posts.... every time you asked) or "no dice".

[Lionz]

I've made mention of one or more Genesis 7 section to you perhaps, but that's the first time I've asked you that specifically maybe. Does anyone with a name that is not PLAYER57832 remember PLAYER57832 saying that there was or was not a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7?

[PLAYER57832]

I've made mention of one or more Genesis 7 section to you perhaps, but that's the first time I've asked you that specifically maybe. Does anyone with a name that is not PLAYER57832 remember PLAYER57832 saying that there was or was not a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7?

I told you on more than one occasion that I do not dispute the flood, including above. I only dispute what you try to put forward as scientific evidence of a flood and that the earth is young. I specifically asked you how you thought the Sahara desert and the reef are supposed to be evidence of a flood, but all you could say was, essentially, "well if they were formed about 5,000 years ago, that's proof" (that is, those are not your exact words, but that is pretty much what you said).

Now, either ask some real questions, answer the questions I have posed in a real way or I am through.

[Lionz]

Saying you do not dispute the flood is not saying whether or not there is a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7 and I'm not claiming the Sahara Desert or the Great Barrier Reef prove anything perhaps.

[PLAYER57832]

Saying you do not dispute the flood is not saying whether or not there is a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7 and I'm not claiming the Sahara Desert or the Great Barrier Reef prove anything perhaps.

If you won't even stand by what you have said, then why should I even bother reading any further?

[Lionz]

Have I said anything proved anything?

[jonesthecurl]

[sits back. Passes popcorn round]

[PLAYER57832]

I still wish there were someone who could sensibly debate this. At any rate, I can see I need to bone up on my geology a bit.

[jonesthecurl]

NO: you bone up on paleontology. Geology rocks.

[PLAYER57832]

NO: you bone up on paleontology. Geology rocks.

lol
Geology rocks and moves...

[PLAYER57832]

I've made mention of one or more Genesis 7 section to you perhaps, but that's the first time I've asked you that specifically maybe. Does anyone with a name that is not PLAYER57832 remember PLAYER57832 saying that there was or was not a local flood mentioned in Genesis 7?

I said I beleived in Noah's flood. I also said it had nothing to do with evolution, though one can say it has to do with Earth's creation.

I also said there is no evidence of a world-wide flood, but that lack of evidence is not evidence that it did not happen. I did discuss various pictures you seemed to feel were evidence of a flood. Oh, well, let me correct that, pictures you said might, perhaps, be taken as evidence. Of course, you have not yet really affirmed much of anything or even answered most questions posed to you.

[Lionz]

What's Noah's flood if not an earthwide flood? There's quite a bit of evidence for one whether you personally feel something is evidence for one or not perhaps. How about go ahead and re-ask a question if there's one you've asked that I have not addressed?

[PLAYER57832]

What's Noah's flood if not an earthwide flood? There's quite a bit of evidence for one whether you personally feel something is evidence for one or not perhaps. How about go ahead and re-ask a question if there's one you've asked that I have not addressed?

How about you stop trolling.

Then perhaps, .... maybe.

[tzor]

What's Noah's flood if not an earthwide flood?

Before we talk about the flood, let us consider the mustard seed problem and why it is indeed not a problem.

In Matthew 13:31-32, Jesus said that the mustard seed was “smaller than all other seeds,” but that when it was full grown, it would be large enough for birds to nest in its branches.

Today, we know that there are seeds even smaller than the mustard seed. For instance, the orchid seed is so small and fine that it's almost dust-like. There are those who would also question whether a mustard seed could ever grow into a tree that is large enough to hold a bird nest.

Now, if Jesus (who claimed to be God) was wrong about the mustard seed, why should we trust anything else that He said? And on what basis can the Bible be considered reliable on any scientific or historical matter?

• Keep the text in context. Failing to consider the historical and Biblical context of a particular verse or passage may be the most common mistake of all. But it's crucial to an accurate understanding of the text. The Bible doesn't approve of everyone whom it quotes or talks about.
  
• Subject the obscure to the straightforward. The Bible is clear about many things, so always allow the which is clear to be a guide in unraveling that which is not clear. In other words, trust the perspicuity of Scripture. As the old adage goes, "Let the main things be the plain things, and the plain things be the main things."
  
• Allow for partial accounts, quotes, and particular points of view. Don't always assume that a report or quote is wrong just because it happens to be less than 100% complete.
  
• Acknowledge the difference between citations and quotations. Many times a passage from the Old Testament may be referenced in the New Testament without necessarily being quoted. Why shouldn't a writer be allowed to cite the essence of a text, just as we often do today, without offering an exact word-for-word quote?!
  
• Remember that the Bible employs literary devices. Metaphors, analogies, types, allegories, hyperboles, and similes would all be examples of this.

The key is that everything in the story is from the point of view of Noah. It is also told in context with the "science" of the time; consider the New American Bible reference to Genesis 1:2

The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13).

[Lionz]

Genesis 7:19-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-7.

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/2pet3.htm

How about simply walk up a mountain if it was a local flood?

[PLAYER57832]

Young Earth /Old Earth arguments summed:

THE BIBLE:
Definition of "yom"
Young Earthers maintain that "yom" (or day, as it is translated into English) means strictly a 24 hour time period. Old Earthers say the term is more ambiguous, that the "days" were never intended to mean 24 hours.

EVIDENCE: The short of it is that there are some scholars who maintain either position. Few of the people lodging these debates are, themselves, experts, particularly those of us in this forum. So, it really just gets down to whom you trust. Two points, though. First, while it is true that most people, most scholars would have said the Earth was young in ages past, that was an assumption, not an affirmation. That is, it very much compares to the belief that the sun revolved around the earth. Most, particularly European scholars felt that anything other than saying the Earth was the center of the universe would have meant implying we were not God's special creation, but there were always dissenters. Some ancients knew the earth revolved around the sun. Most Biblical scholars, when pressed would have simply said that the Bible doesn't spell out either position. Second, most scholars asserting that Genesis does not refer to a set time frame are fully aware of the dissenters, acknowledge them, but also that the scholars who have the narrower position are far fewer. Young Earth scholars, by contrast, largely insist on denying that the other view exists in any numbers at all or that it was ever a historical position. They utterly ignore the fact that most Jews don't accept their view.

Order of creation:
Young Earthers assert that the order of creation does not jive with evolutionary theory. Evolutionists who believe the Bible largely say it does.

EVIDENCE/DEBATE:
This one baffles most evolutionists who accept the Bible, because the order set forth is pretty parallel to evolution. Given that ancients are not believed to have much scientific knowledge of fossils or the full breadth of species, this similarity is pure remarkable.

Definition of "kind", etc.:
I lump a couple of arguments here. Basically, young earthers insist this means that everything was already created and could not have evolved or be evolving, except in purely minor ways. Old Earthers point to the varied uses of the term “kind” in speech. Also, they maintain that the Bible discussed only the end result, not the process to get there.

EVIDENCE/DEBATE:
Young earthers maintain, again that this one meaning is the only meaning one can deign from those words. In this, there is no historical interpretation because the whole concept is purely modern. Ancients would not even had the knowledge to even get into this debate really. However, a few points. First, there are many, many species not even mentioned in the Bible. I don't just mean subspecies, etc. I mean truly unique species very unrelated to the others. Things like the Nautilus, etc. If the Bible is supposed to be a full and complete creation list, then why so many omissions?

Young earthers often simply deny that the fossil record represents the full diversity. Another common explanation is that all those other species died in Noah’s flood. Both involve science, so I will deal with them later.

Old Earthers say that the Bible is very specific when a specific meaning is needed. In this case, it is not. Where it is not specific, this must be intentional. Human attempts to put more narrow definitions where none exist is pure human hubris. The short is that people can and have throughout history tried to get "more detail" on what the Bible says. In some cases, where archeology reveals aspects of dress and diet or political realities of the day, for example, that makes sense. In this case, it is an attempt to make the text fit what some people believe must be true.

SEMANTICS/DEFINITIONS:
Evolution means absence of God.
This is both a lie and a circular argument at once.
The lie – young earthers constantly assert that “random” means mathematical randomness, with no possible outside cause. The truth is that while some atheist scientist will assert their belief that evolution “proves” no God (or simply shows that “God is not needed”), this is not part of the scientific theory at all. In this context, as in most of science, “random” really means “a bunch of processes we cannot fully explain or predict” or “too many processes to detail and in a pattern we cannot explain well”.

In truth almost nothing in science, particularly biology is truly “random” in that sense, even for the atheist. Once one step is made, others are eliminated. A progression of steps leads to fairly strict limitation of possibilities. For example, once a creature appears with 4 legs (for whatever reason), it is far more likely that its descendants will also have 4 legs than 20. Fossils show us mostly results. They show us a series of animals that existed here on earth. Comparing fossils can give us a hint as to the progression, but why and exactly how is left open. Of course, scientists are individuals with their own, varied beliefs. Some have come out and maintained that evolution “proves” there is no God. But, that is their belief. It is not scientific fact. For anyone willing to accept God as a possibility, God very much could be directing evolution.

The circular argument: Young earthers will constantly say that most or all Christians believe the earth is young. They can say this with truth because they define belief in Christianity as believing their literal interpretation of the Bible. So, anyone who disagrees is just not truly a Christian. In addition to being a circular argument (anyone who disagrees with us is wrong, since they are wrong we don’t need to seriously consider what they say, therefore we are correct), though it also contains a lie. See, when pressed, they almost always back off from accusing any one person of being “unChristian” , but they do say they are “misguided” or “uninformed about what most Christians think”, etc. This can stretch into outright lies or utter misinformation, though because so many young earthers state with confidence that most “mainline” churches agree with them and that this is a view prevalent worldwide. Neither is true. In fact, young earth creationism is till largely confined to the US (though spreading). Both the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant churches all either actively affirm evolution as being closer to the Bible or are nuetral (saying that the Bible is unclear on this and its up to scientists to decide).
(the Protestant churches include the Church of Christ, Methodist, Episcopalian, ELCA Lutheran, Presbyterian, even some Baptist groups, etc.). Those against include Four Square, the Vineyard, Nazarene, Missionary Alliance, the Southern Baptist convention and many other smaller diverse groups.

Evolution (and sometimes science as a whole) is a theory mostly created to dispute the true vision of God set out in the Bible.
Evolution, like all scientific theories, is based on evidence. It was created to answer the evidence seen. Some people feel that disputes the Bible, some do not. In either case, while it is one of many disputes both in science and religion, saying it was a theory specifically created to dispute the Bible or disprove God is just wrong.

Did Darwin reject Christianity? The argument is irrelevant, but the truth is that while his findings did lead him to question God, most Darwin experts point to the death of his daughter as the real reason he turned away from God, to the extent he did. From its inception, many Christian scholars easily melded the two. Why is it any less evidence of God’s majesty that he used evolution to create all than simply “snapping his fingers” to create all?

Sadly, “scientific creationism” a.k.a. “intelligent design”/a.k.a. “young earth creationism” often doesn’t even try to do this. They often simply deny most evidence exists, instead focusing primarily on errors and misstatements.

Evolution is one, complete theory from the Big Bang to modern species adaptations.
Young earthers like to talk of "cosmic evolution", etc as if they were all tied in and related to the theory of the evolution of life on earth. They then proceed to talk about one portion, usually the initial creation and then use that as a reason why evolution must be wrong. (I will get into individual evidence/disputes later).

However, not only are things like the Big Bang utterly independent of evolution, evolution is more rightly considered as many, many small theories that meld into one "whole". The overall idea of evolution is that species change over time, that the life we see today descended from other species through a proces known as evolution. However, in a sense each suggestion that one species descended from another specific species, even the identity of each fossil is, in a sense a theory. (or in the case of fossil classifications and labels, a definition).

Theories of the "initial" creation, such as the Big Bang could well be wrong without in any way impacting the theories of Evolution or the general concept that evolution is true (that species change over time). Even though the idea that we all descend from essentially "one cell" (not just one cell, but one type is closer to what was suspected), that idea could be proven wrong without discounting all the evidence of later evolution. Truth is, not much is known about that initial point. Its largely "guesses". Guesses based on evidence, but nowhere near as firm as the evidence for, say the evolution of clams or fish. In fact, there is currently a growing set of research suggesting that maybe more than one type of cell was initially created.

Evolution is a linear, uni-directional process
The young earth description of evolution usually describes it as the idea that species A mutates into species B, which mutates into species C. They often say something like evolutionists claim Species B is a transition species, but species A is still here... therefore evolution is false!

In truth, evolution always had many branches, like a plant. Like a tree, some have been pruned off. Like a stalk, sometimes the original species persists, but some of its progeny were enough divergeant or cut off from the main population (etc.) so that eventually they give rise to other species. That horseshoe crabs or sea lampreys exist is not evidence that evolution failed to happen. It is evidence that this particular species was successful, whereas other related species (or even just "attempts at species "... not all mutations even succeed in the individual) wer not. They died off, perhaps left progeny that further mutated and adapted more successfully (or were more lucky -- its not all survival of the fittest) or perhaps the entire "line" or "branch" simply disappeared. Further, if a species thought to have disappeared is found later, that just means it lasted longer than originally thought. It in no way impinges on evolutionary theory. (in some cases, new discoveries do change the details, the "mini theories", even big parts of the overall picture, but not the whole theory)

SCIENCE -- GEOLOGY
Note: this is not my direct field, so I cannot answer some technical issues. However, most of the debate doesn't concern anything truly technicial. Also, I can find answers and/or point to where they can be found.

Geological Strata
Young earthers speak of multiple errors, gaps and "circular reasoning". The old earth argument is is much harder to explain, because it is built up upon layers and layers of evidence.

The basic idea of geologists is that the surface of the Earth is composed of varied layers, formed by many different events. These include, but are not limited to floods, volcanoes, wind action, tide action, and organics (plants, etc.). For the first few layers, the story is pretty simple and, I don't believe even contested much by young earthers. That is, the Nile has flooded the Nile delta, as has the Mississippi, etc for centuries. Landslides occur regularly. Several volcanic eruptions have occured within human memory. Wind erosion, too can be observed to have occured within the span of humanity, whether it is ancient ruins that are buried or things uncovered. That earthquakes cause gaps in the earth is also plain, observable fact. You can see the evidence of ground shift in many places.

However, while young earthers accept that for known human history, they do not accept that these layers extend down in the same way. They absolutely dispute some of the more severe events, such as uplift of mountains, lond erosion of canyons and plate techtonics.

[more to follow]
I apologize for not continuing this more quickly.. real scientific analysis and explanations take time. Anyone else is more than welcome to provide what they know.

[Lionz]

Who said a Bible was supposed to be a full and complete creation list or that evolution means an absense of Him or that most or all Christians believe the earth is young?

You're avoiding crucial points and attacking things no one in here is even arguing for maybe. Is there a version of Genesis 1:11-19 that doesn't suggest the sun was created after earth vegetation? Is there a version of Genesis 2:5 that doesn't suggest He sent rain on earth only after there being earth vegetation?

And there is life that descended from other species through a process known as evolution perhaps, but you might be underestimating how many seperate genetic family trees there are.

[PLAYER57832]

Who said a Bible was supposed to be a full and complete creation list or that evolution means an absense of Him or that most or all Christians believe the earth is young? .

This post is exactly why I am no longer answering your questions.

I will, however, continue answering other people's questions or points.

[Lionz]

?

[Neoteny]

Lionz 2 Christians 0

[tzor]

Now I get to say it.

??

[Falkomagno]

Evidence for the fact of evolution

There is now abundant evidence for the occurrence of evolution. There are several lines of evidence, which we here list:

1. Observations of change in living organisms provide direct evidence for small genetic changes within populations and species (so-called “micro-evolution”). These provide striking examples of evolution by natural selection (see further). There are many examples. There are three main ways to show evolution by studying living populations:
• Monitoring changes in populations and comparing populations that occupy different habitats (in the latter approach, one uses space as a proxy to study changes that happened through time). This approach needs verification that the changes have a genetic basis. Classical studies are the changes in colour of the peppered moth Biston betularia in relation to air pollution in the U.K.. A very striking example is the year-to-year changes in beak size of the Darwin finch Geospiza fortis on the Galapagos islands (Grant, 1986; Grant & Grant, 2002). Very well studied is also the evolution of body size and number of offspring in guppies (small fish) in Trinidad (e.g. Reznick et al., 1990).
• In aquatic organisms that make dormant eggs (cf. “seeds”), there is the possibility to hatch eggs from different time periods in the recent past, because part of the eggs get buried in layered sediments of lakes. Using this approach, our research group at K.U.Leuven was able to reconstruct evolutionary changes of behaviour in the water flea Daphnia in a fish culture pond in the neighbourhood of Leuven (Cousyn et al., 2001). This study provides strong evidence for rapid and real-time evolutionary changes in our immediate neighbourhood.


• One can document evolutionary responses in the laboratory or in outdoor experimental set-ups, by exposing organisms to specific selection factors in “experimental evolution” trials. There are many examples, including work of our research group at K.U.Leuven, showing a genetic response in a freshwater crustacean in response to an increase in temperature (simulating global warming; Van Doorslaer et al., 2007).
These studies provide the most direct evidence possible for evolutionary dynamics. Because of the relatively small time-scale involved, however, they only document “micro-evolution”, i.e. genetic changes within populations and species. It is not possible to mimic a speciation event (one species diversifying into one or two other species) in the laboratory, although some studies have achieved in documenting several steps of this process.

2. Comparative analysis of features of living organisms provides striking evidence for dramatic change, reflecting “macro-evolution”. Examples are the fact that some snakes have still very tiny and completely nonfunctional remains of appendages, and the fact that the kiwi, a bird inhabiting New Zealand that is completely incapable of flying still has (ridiculously small and nonfunctional) remains of wings. We humans have a rudimentary tailbone, which is nonfunctional but reflects our ancestry – tailed primates.

3. Important evidence for (macro-evolution) can be gained from the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that (1) many life forms went extinct during the course of the past hundred of millions of years, and that new life forms came into existence, (2) there is often a succession of species that nicely show “descent with modification” (a nice example is the lineage that lead to the evolution of the present-day horses), including the fact that sometimes fossils are discovered that really show transitional forms (e.g. Archaeopteryx, the early bird-like fossil that had feathers but also had teeth in the mouth just like its ancestors, which are dinosaur-like reptiles).

4. Molecular techniques allow to reconstruct “phylogenetic” trees from the sequence of base-pairs in the DNA, and these studies show how one lineage gave rise to the other and even provide an approximate estimate of the age at which the new lineage became independent. This evidence can be matched with evidence derived from other sources (e.g. trait evolution to match with the tree, occurrence of fossils to match to the dating) and often these different lines of evidence reinforce each other in reconstructing the course of evolution.
5. Finally, as mentioned earlier, organisms share a number of fundamental similarities that are striking given the enormous diversity of life forms. These similarities are evident at the level of the cells and biochemical cycles, but also at the level of genes (e.g. the gene for eye development in mice can be transplanted in embryo’s of the flies and gives rise to (insect) eyes!, even though the structure or a mouse eye is different from that of an insect) and at the level of organs and all kinds of structures (e.g. the heart of all vertebrates is “homologous” in the sense that it is derived from the same type of cells and tissues, and that it has a common origin). The latter is also nicely shown during embryonic development: at a given stage, the human embryo shares many characteristics with that of lower vertebrates (so-called developmental homologies).

[Lionz]

1. Whether or not any evolution occurs is pretty much a non-issue and there's no one who's posted in here that claims creatures don't bring forth variety maybe. Lions and tigers might be an example of creatures who share common ancestry.

2 and 5. Could structural similarity between creatures not actually be seen as evidence for a common Designer? Are there any two Hondas without interchangable parts?





Creatures have brought forth variety and vestigial organs wouldn't prove universal common descent across earth even if there truly are some perhaps, but you might refer to snake appendages that are used in mating either way and so what if there are birds with wings who don't fly? What if He created several like that on purpose including ancestors of peacocks and ostriches and pink flamingos and jungle fowls and kiwis?

3. What does the fossil record actually say about evolution? There's a quote here you should keep in mind maybe...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=118521&p=2618196#p2618196

You post something that claims that there is often a succession of species that nicely show descent with modification and that claims there is a lineage that lead to evolution of present day horses that is a nice example? Even horses and zebras share common ancestry maybe. What would horses having evolved from ancient horses say about whether or not there's universal common descent across earth? We might stand side by side on a number of issues.

If Archaeopteryx is treated as the best evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds, should that not tell us something about whether or not that occured? Is there not at least a pretty decent sample size of fossils at this point? If dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years, where is evidence for that? There are birds with claws alive even now and there have been birds with teeth alive in the past maybe. Was a warm blooded creature born to a cold blooded creature? There are a number of major differences between birds and reptiles you should consider maybe. Want to have a detailed discussion on whether birds evolved from dinosaurs? See quotes here?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&p=2513629#p2513629

4. Evolution occurs to an extent and we should expect to be able to find genetic links between different species perhaps, but should it be surprising to us if there are genetic links between turtles and snakes that do not exist between turtles and humans even if none of them share common ancestry? Turtles and snakes have more in common and it should be expected even if none of them do maybe.

What if He even designed creatures and then chose to work off previous designs to build later ones as opposed to starting from scratch? Imagine drawing a creature on MS Paint and then saving it under a name and then doing more work leading to a different creature and saving again under a different name later? What should be assumed?

[tzor]

Living beings are not forks. The former are self replicating systems the later are byproducts. But that doesn't matter, there is far more diversity in forks than there is in human life. You have three pronged forks, four pronged forks, chop sticks, etc. Natural selection doesn't apply to forks, a medieval fork is just as good as a modern one.

It it not the similiarities but also the differences. That these differences forms patterns and in fact heirarchies is also important. Even you can't get away from "evolving" because if the difference between species 1 and 2 is x then God first made species 1 and then "tweaked" the system by x to create species 2. It also reveals the crappy watchmaker problem. You see no one likes to make a crappy watch. But at the macro level, life is indeed crappy, "good enough for goverment work," only good enough to continue on in the present conditions. (The individual cell, on the other hand is a pretty good watch, but that is another question, the origin of species is completely different from the origin of the cell.)