If you were presented with a purported history book (not the Bible) that affirmed an entire river was suddenly loaded with hemoglobin, wooden sticks transforming into serpents, serpents and donkeys with the capability of human speech, etc. etc., would you consider that history book as a reliable source of evidence?
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
You do not believe that Alfred Wegener was basically correct in his continental drift idea?
What geologic process can you point to that we have evidence of that would have caused the mountains to rise and valleys to sink a couple thousand years ago?
Last edited:
Unobservable? Strictly speaking, things that happened as recently as yesterday are unobservable, unless you are in possession of a time machine. But no one doubts our ability to increase our understanding of things from the past by studying the evidence left behind.
Pseudoscientific is one of those put-down words that creationists like to wield against scientific ideas they don’t want to accept.
Like when Davis A. Young - Geology Professor Emeritus of Calvin College - wrote:
…there is abundant evidence for an extremely old earth and that there is no geological evidence to confirm the idea of a universal deluge.
(In the preface to “The Biblical Flood – A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence”)
(In the preface to “The Biblical Flood – A Case Study of the Church’s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence”)
Christian religious leaders from just a few centuries ago specifically used passages from the Bible to condemn Copernican ideas. At trial, wasn’t the claim made against Galileo that the Bible clearly states that it was the sun and moon (not the earth) that stopped on Joshua’s long day?
So often I see you say this, and I agree. But for some reason you seem determined never to take the next step and do what real scientists do when faced with alternate explanations – and that is to investigate how science can be used to determine which of the explanations is correct.
A few weeks ago I proposed assembling a team of the best talent across the breadth of science to support an extended space venture. I suggested that, based on their proven track record, there are a number of universities who are recognized as graduating the cream of the scientific crop. Yale, MIT, Cal Tech, Cambridge, Berkeley. I didn’t see you object to any of these, nor recommend other schools that you would give higher marks to. So just as a matter of interest, which of these schools concur with your assessment that science is proving evolutionism wrong?
This coming from someone who is perfectly accepting of the idea that a bunch of earth named Adam got up and started walking around, commenting on the fact that it had no clothes on, it would sure like a lady friend, deciding how to name a few hundred thousand species of animals in one day, remembering which apples were OK and which weren’t, etc. etc.
I was under the impression that the examples of rapid adaptation were notable specifically because they are rare. But you are saying rapid adaptation is the correct model? I just did a quick check and found a list of several hundred species that are on the verge of extinction. With the Biblical model of rapid adaption you allude to, do you think most of these species will adapt rather than become extinct?
Last edited:
Seems a bit contrived, huh ?
Hedshaker
New member
And in any case, the Bible is not an history book. It's just one of many holy books.....
DavisBJ, My dear friend,
When the Lord God formed man from the ground, it means He used much of the elements, minerals, hydrogen and oxygen, and He is a Master Chemist, so that a lump of clay wasn't running around. Also, he did not say he wanted a lady friend. God formed woman after Adam, because the Lord saw that he needed a help mate {a partner, friend}. Also, God did not require of Adam to name a few hundred thousand species of animals in one day, but instead maybe 50 that were in his local vicinity, and like he called a butterfly, not naming monarch butterfly, etc. All he would have to do was name the creatures, etc. in the Garden of Eden. And don't ever think that Noah saved a few hundred thousand creatures on his Ark. It just didn't happen. The animals that the Lord God wanted saved were the ones that He sent to Noah's Ark. He brought the animals/creeping things to Noah. Noah didn't go out and get them all. Oh, all of the great things that have been that you still need to learn about and that you will be floored once you do know the truth of the matter. If there were not seven clean animals and two unclean animals, they weren't included. That means, they were extincted. You are probably too far into it {atheism} to be learning anything from what we tell you.
I do not know as of yet how any additional creatures or creeping things came to be in our time, but I'm sure that God had His Hand in it. I surely hope that we can agree to disagree and still remain friends!! PM me if we can share the excursion that you just went on. Did you get to see the Pacific Ocean? Maybe Redondo Beach??
Warmest Regards!
Michael
:cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :guitar: :singer:
Evolutionists have made gargantuan exaggerations and assumptions, but don't expect them to admit it. In fact, expect them to do exactly the opposite and conjure up more nonsense.
Evolution has become something of a religion of faith in and of itself. It shouldn't be anything of much surprise- look at how they turn the Christian Fish into something with legs saying 'Darwin' in the middle, complete blasphemy, or the atheist 'atom'.
They hinge on the ideas of life coming from nothing, and reality coming from nothing- but the fact of the matter is that the fossil record could altogether fit inside of a standard size barn and there is no satisfactory theory of physics showing that it's possible for the universe to not have an intelligent agent.
So let them be pompous and drive the world into a further lie that the world already is anyway. An enormous, laughable stockpile of guilty white dudes, hypocritical 'minorites' (everyone not white), religious fanatics, and social media pushers as about as close to reality as an ethereal peanut.
Evolution has become something of a religion of faith in and of itself. It shouldn't be anything of much surprise- look at how they turn the Christian Fish into something with legs saying 'Darwin' in the middle, complete blasphemy, or the atheist 'atom'.
They hinge on the ideas of life coming from nothing, and reality coming from nothing- but the fact of the matter is that the fossil record could altogether fit inside of a standard size barn and there is no satisfactory theory of physics showing that it's possible for the universe to not have an intelligent agent.
So let them be pompous and drive the world into a further lie that the world already is anyway. An enormous, laughable stockpile of guilty white dudes, hypocritical 'minorites' (everyone not white), religious fanatics, and social media pushers as about as close to reality as an ethereal peanut.
Dear patrickj,
Yes, it boils down to the fact there was not that many different creatures and creeping things on the Ark -- at least not hundreds of thousands. No giant men and women, either. Many reptiles were made extinct. I expect the mosquitoes hitched a ride because they didn't have a mosquito trap hanging. And there must have been huge vessels to keep water in for the trip. And wine also. I'm sure they kept very busy on the Ark, feeding and watering the animals and creeping things. And the birds, and armadillos, tortoises. It was a great undertaking, but I don't think there were that many inhabitants on the Ark, being kept alive.
Hey, I've been giving you a lot of rep pts, tbh. More than everyone else, probably. It won't always let me give you more. If you want to PM me, go for it.
May God Heap An Abundance Of Treasures Upon Your Soul!!
Michael
:rapture: :cloud9: :angel: :rapture: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer:
Last edited:
Dear Hedshaker,
For many of us, the Bible is a partial history book too. Not just a holy book. That is why the Bible is the best-selling book in our Age.
Much Love And Cheerio!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer:
So true! And archaeologists keep finding validation for historical data contained within the Bible.
Dear Crucible,
You learn fast!! Evolutionists are mistaken,but they don't want to admit it. But some are still friends. I can't separate the fact that I love them truly and hope that something I say can somehow change their way of thinking. It must be possible. If Jesus were here, I know that He could do it. Well, I see that you are new to this website and my thread here. We can use all of the Christians we can get here. There are plenty of evolutionists here. They are usually agnostic, or atheist. I'll bet if one of them repented, heaven's angels, would be thrilled, and God and Jesus too!! So, if God wants one of them to remain in darkness, that is up to Him. Hope to hear from you again soon!!
Much Love, In Christ,
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:
Dear bybee,
I hope that archaeologists would do even more, so that there would be no question and the evolutionists would have to relinquish their words.
Thanks for the post and it's really great to have you here. I am going to have to divide this thread. It's getting too long. Knight hopefully will help me.
God Bless Your BIG Heart And Soul!!
Michael
:angel: :angel: :angel: :guitar: :cloud9: :cloud9: :singer:
6days
New member
No...not*poor interpretations of evidence like that. *I was thinking more like....."Exciting research from the summer of 2012 described DNA variation in the protein coding regions of the human genome linked to population growth. One of the investigation's conclusions was that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than*5,000 years ago.*This observation closely agrees with a biblical timeline of post-flood human diversification. Yet another study, this one published in the journal*Nature, accessed even more extensive data and unintentionally confirmed the recent human history described in Genesis.*http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/DavisBJ said:
Or this
"yet another confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy, scientists have now confirmed what Scripture refers to as*“the fountains of the deep.”*In the days of Noah and the Ark, these large pools of water beneath the Earth’s crust burst forth onto the surface providing the massive amounts of water needed for the global flood judgment. What has once been a source of skepticism and mockery for those who doubt the Bible, has now been confirmed by secular scientists, again showing that although written over 3,000 years ago, the Bible’s description of the Earth and its natural properties are indeed accurate.
According to reports:
An international team of scientists led by Graham Pearson, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Arctic Resources at the U of A, has discovered the first-ever sample of a mineral called ringwoodite. Analysis of the mineral shows it contains a significant amount of water — 1.5 per cent of its weight — a finding that confirms scientific theories about vast volumes of water trapped 410 to 660 kilometres beneath Earth’s surface, between the upper and lower mantle.
“This sample really provides extremely strong confirmation that there are local wet spots deep in the Earth in this area,” said Pearson, a professor in the Faculty of Science, whose findings were published March 13 in Nature. “That particular zone in the Earth, the transition zone, might have as much water as all the world’s oceans put together.”http://beginningandend.com/scientists-confirm-biblical-account-of-the-fountains-of-the-deep/
Or this.....
"Geologic Evidences for the Genesis FloodPart I: An Overview....
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/geologic-evidences-for-the-genesis-flood/
- Status