I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

Here's some information on that from a graduate of the Institute for Creation Research graduate school:OLOR="#800000"]For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(Seerl]http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf[/url] for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF e also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was l]http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif[/urlI worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hiredorder to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems.But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. [/COLOR]l]http://www.oldearth.org/whyileft.htm[/url]ere are a lot of people like Glen Morton, but unfortunately not all of them were, like Morton, able to keep their faith in God; when they discovered that YE creationism was a false doctrine, many of them lost their faith entirely. This is the real damage done by YE creationism.

<inserts story from reverse perspective>

All of a sudden it's a battle over storytelling, not evidence, which is exactly what the Darwinist wants.

This is the real damage done by evolutionists.

 

[chair]

...

If YEC were true, we would definitely expect that. The story of creation and the garden of eden even specifically talks about trees bearing fruit and fruit is the exclusive domain of angiosperms.

Angiosperm means "Vessel seed" meaning seeds inside of a container. Gymnosperm means "Naked seed" which the seeds are held on the surface of cones.

This is a very important point. Genesis describes the creation of trees bearing fruit. Not to mention that fruit that Adam and Eve ate. So fruit trees were around from the very beginning, according to Genesis. So why don't we find remains of these plants in coal? Other plants do show up.

The same issue is true for many types of fossils. But the case of fruit bearing trees is the best example, since the Bible clearly states that they were created at the beginning. One cannot hide behind "kindology" and super-fast -species-generation in that case. Unless you want to deny Genesis.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is a very important point. Genesis describes the creation of trees bearing fruit. Not to mention that fruit that Adam and Eve ate. So fruit trees were around from the very beginning, according to Genesis. So why don't we find remains of these plants in coal?

Flowering plants didn't show up until the Cretaceous, IIRC.

Other plants do show up.

The usual creationist excuse is "differential escape." That is, faster organisms were able to outrun the flood longer than slower organisms. Hence the slow cycads were left behind by the speedy apple trees.

Simple.

 

[Stripe]

This is a very important point. Genesis describes the creation of trees bearing fruit. Not to mention that fruit that Adam and Eve ate. So fruit trees were around from the very beginning, according to Genesis. So why don't we find remains of these plants in coal? Other plants do show up.

The same issue is true for many types of fossils. But the case of fruit bearing trees is the best example, since the Bible clearly states that they were created at the beginning. One cannot hide behind "kindology" and super-fast -species-generation in that case. Unless you want to deny Genesis.

Did you have a reason for believing a catastrophic global flood would bury everything everywhere?

 

[chair]

Did you have a reason for believing a catastrophic global flood would bury everything everywhere?

Why shlouldn't it? Please propose a mechanism by which a global flood would bury some kinds of plants, but not others, when the sorting is not based on size, but on how they reproduce.

 

[Stripe]

The sorting is not based on size, but on how they reproduce.

Where did you get that idea?

Imagine a land hit by a massive tsunami carrying billions of tonnes of sediment and then being swamped for a year under tsunami wave orbitals.

Why would you expect what you're demanding should be there?

 

[chair]

Please propose a mechanism by which a global flood would bury some kinds of plants, but not others, when the sorting is not based on size, but on how they reproduce.

 

[chair]

Stripe, is there a problem? What is the mechanism?

 

[iamaberean]

Evolution is a well supported scientific idea attested by a wide variety of scientific data and Jesus Christ is a singular figure in human history with strong evidence of being different from every other person that has ever lived. His death burial and resurrection are unique and leads me to believe His claims of Godhood. I believe both of these things are true, and it is unfortunate that many Christians insist on rejecting science. This creates a stumbling block for many Christians where there need not be one.

Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us. Evolution is supported by four major types of evidence:

Fossils

DNA evidence

Biogeography

Anatomy and Development (Evo-devo)


So here's a piece of evidence here:

A Gray whale skeleton. For those that reject evolution, why do whales have fingers in their flippers?

Dorudon skeleton. Why do fossil whales have hind legs?





Note that the title of this post is also the title of a book I have enjoyed:

I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution: Paperback – March 4, 2009
by Denis O. Lamoureux

Also of interest: Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the Light of Evolution.

I have trouble with evolution, but I have come to the conclusion that there was a time that God, in a beginning, created the heavens and the earth and it became null and void. This could have been millions of years ago and during that time God created some types of life, such as dinosaurs, and others. This would explain the age of the bones that have been found.

So, Gen 1:1-2 could read "In a beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and it became null and void", void because it was destroyed by whatever, but leaving behind dead bones.

One can not explain the age of those bones any other way except by evolution, or that God planted those bones to fool mankind, and I don't buy either one of those scenarios.

If it makes sense, it is probably right, and the above is the only conclusion that does make sense.

 

[Caino]

This is a very important point. Genesis describes the creation of trees bearing fruit. Not to mention that fruit that Adam and Eve ate. So fruit trees were around from the very beginning, according to Genesis. So why don't we find remains of these plants in coal? Other plants do show up.

The same issue is true for many types of fossils. But the case of fruit bearing trees is the best example, since the Bible clearly states that they were created at the beginning. One cannot hide behind "kindology" and super-fast -species-generation in that case. Unless you want to deny Genesis.

Fruit cakes didn't show up until religion was invented in an attempt to manipulate the ghost spirit world.

 

[Wick Stick]

This is a very important point. Genesis describes the creation of trees bearing fruit. Not to mention that fruit that Adam and Eve ate. So fruit trees were around from the very beginning, according to Genesis. So why don't we find remains of these plants in coal? Other plants do show up.

Because the creation account in Genesis isn't literal, and you shouldn't be trying to use it that way.

 

[7djengo7]

eye evolution

I don't mean an individual animal when discussing biological evolution

I take it you would say you don't mean an individual eye when discussing "eye evolution", no? So, then, what (if anything) would you say you are talking about by your phrase, "eye evolution"? A population of eyes?

Oh, also, would you say that eyes have/are/can be ancestors/descendants? Would you say that eyes are organisms? Would you say that eyes procreate?

 

[7djengo7]

In your picture (the link to which is quoted, above), you say that what makes something an animal is that it is an organism able to move on its own. So, I asked you from what did animals inherit their ability to move on their own:

From what would you say the kingdom, "animals", inherited its organisms' ability to move on their own?

Your response:

From simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures.

Are "simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures" organisms able to move on their own, or are they not?
Are "simple eukaryotic organisms that also move through the use of their cytoskeletal structures" animals, or are they not?

If they are, then why would you exclude them from the kingdom, animals? Why would you exclude things that are animals from the kingdom, animals? Either something is an animal--an organism able to move on its own--or it is not. Either a "simple eukaryotic organism...." is an animal--an organism able to move on its own--or it is not. Which do you say it is: an animal, or a non-animal?

 

[7djengo7]

In your picture, we see it said that mammals are "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands." Now, if I'm not mistaken, you take your picture to somehow be about inheritance. So, from what would you say "chordates with fur or hair and milk glands" inherited fur or hair and milk glands?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because the creation account in Genesis isn't literal, and you shouldn't be trying to use it that way.

Because you say so?

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal, you lose the ENTIRE REST OF THE BIBLE'S MEANING.

https://youtu.be/t8FfF2BgP9E

Ideas and beliefs have consequences. When those consequences undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ, such beliefs should be questioned thoroughly, and are likely incorrect.

 

[The Barbarian]

Because you say so?

If Genesis 1-3 is not literal, you lose the ENTIRE REST OF THE BIBLE'S MEANING.

You lose the new reinterpretation of YE creationism. But not the Bible's meaning. The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You lose the new

As you have been shown many times, The idea that the earth is young is not "new" in any sense.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/

reinterpretation

No, the reinterpretation comes from your side, Barb, not ours. The reinterpretation of Genesis started around the Enlightenment.

of YE creationism.

Which is, as you were just shown, at least as old as the church fathers.

But not the Bible's meaning.

The BIBLE says "six days" and "from the beginning of the creation."

That's literally what it says.

You want it to say "millions/billions of years" and "from the beginning of the creation of man."

Let God be true and every man a liar. That includes you, too, Barbarian.

The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.

Except that they are, because if you reject that God created man on the sixth day from the dust of the earth (and not from a group of ape-like creatures), and that shortly after that man sinned and brought death upon the whole world, then there is absolutely no significance to or meaning in Jesus' coming to die on the cross.

It even discredits Paul, because as Paul said, "Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . . Therefore, as through ONE MAN'S OFFENSE judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

So not only is Moses and Jesus discredited by rejecting Genesis as literal, so too is Paul.

Do you see now how important it is to get it right?

Ideas and beliefs have consequences.

That's why you should let God be true, and every man a liar.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes the consequences of interpreting Genesis 1-3 as it is:
You lose the new reinterpretation of YE creationism. But not the Bible's meaning. The Gospels are not dependent on the way God created the Earth and life, only that He did it.

As you have been shown many times, The idea that the earth is young is not "new" in any sense.

But as you've been shown many times, YE creationism is no older than the last century, the invention of the 7th-Day Adventists.

Advocates of special creation have long disagreed about the meaning of the creation story found in Genesis 1. By the middle of the nineteenth century an estimated fifty percent of Christian Americans, including many evangelicals, had stretched the Mosaic account to accommodate geological discoveries indicating the antiquity of life on earth. In 1814 the Scottish divine Thomas Chalmers attempted to harmonize the evidence of vast geological ages with the Genesis story by inserting an indefinite period of time between the initial creation "in the beginning" and the much later creation in the Garden of Eden. This so-call gap theory enjoyed great popularity among Christians eager to harmonize science and religion. The American geologist and minister Edward Hitchcock, for example, endorsed this scheme in his influential textbook Elementary Geology. As he explained it, the gap theory "supposed that Moses merely states that God created the world in the beginning, without fixing the date of that beginning; and that passing in silence an unknown period of its history, during which the extinct animals and plants found in the rocks might have lived and died, he describes only the present creation, which took place in six literal days, less than 6000 years ago."

In 1910 the Scofield Reference Bible, an immensely influential annotated edition of the King James Version, presented the gap theory as Christian orthodoxy, influencing millions of Fundamentalists and Pentecostals until late in the century. Harry Rimmer, perhaps the best known American antievolutionist during the second quarter of the century, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart, one of the most successful televangelists during the last quarter of the century, both endorsed the gap theory.

Numerous other Christians chose to harmonize Genesis and geology by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as vast geological ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods. According to the nineteenth-century American naturalist Benjamin Silliman, a man widely known for his Christian piety, God in the beginning had instantaneously "created the heavens and the earth, and established the physical laws, the ordinances of heaven, by which the material world was to be governed." Subsequent to this act, our planet "was subjected to a long course of formation and arrangement, the object of which evidently was, to fit it for the reception, first of plants and animals, and finally of the human race."

In the early twentieth century this interpretation of the Genesis "days" enjoyed great popularity among conservative Christians, receiving the enthusiastic endorsement of such high-profile Fundamentalists as George Frederick Wright, author of the essay on evolution in The Fundamentals; William Bell Riley, founder of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association; and William Jennings Bryan, who led the crusade against evolution in the early 1920s.
...
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.
https://counterbalance.org/history/history-print.html

Yours is a very modern revision of God's word.

No, the reinterpretation comes from your side, Barb, not ours.

See above. No point in denial.

Except that they are, because if you reject that God created man on the sixth day from the dust of the earth (and not from a group of ape-like creatures), and that shortly after that man sinned and brought death upon the whole world, then there is absolutely no significance to or meaning in Jesus' coming to die on the cross.

How God produced man is completely irrelevant to the point of Genesis. The first man and woman disobeyed God and in doing so, died spiritually. That is the point of Jesus coming to save us. Your additions are completely unnecessary.

It even discredits Paul, because as Paul said, "Therefore, just as through ONE MAN sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . . Therefore, as through ONE MAN'S OFFENSE judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Here you're imagining that evolution means there couldn't have been a real Adam and Eve. It's your misunderstanding of science and Genesis that's holding you back here.

Let it be God's way, and you won't be worried about it any more. It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Barbarian. . .

... ignores the evidence provided by JudgeRightly that the early church fathers of the first few centuries of church history believed that the earth was young, and even rejected naturalistic explanations of the creation of the earth.

But as you've been shown many times,

You've shown no one nothing but what you wish to be true.

YE creationism is no older than the last century, the invention of the 7th-Day Adventists.

Again, the early church fathers of the first few centuries after Christ's birth believed the earth was young.

Meaning the belief that the earth is young is MUCH MUCH MUCH older than you claim it is.

You must not have read the link. Here, I'll post it again for you.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/

Spoiler

Advocates of special creation have long disagreed about the meaning of the creation story found in Genesis 1. By the middle of the nineteenth century an estimated fifty percent of Christian Americans, including many evangelicals, had stretched the Mosaic account to accommodate geological discoveries indicating the antiquity of life on earth. In 1814 the Scottish divine Thomas Chalmers attempted to harmonize the evidence of vast geological ages with the Genesis story by inserting an indefinite period of time between the initial creation "in the beginning" and the much later creation in the Garden of Eden. This so-call gap theory enjoyed great popularity among Christians eager to harmonize science and religion. The American geologist and minister Edward Hitchcock, for example, endorsed this scheme in his influential textbook Elementary Geology. As he explained it, the gap theory "supposed that Moses merely states that God created the world in the beginning, without fixing the date of that beginning; and that passing in silence an unknown period of its history, during which the extinct animals and plants found in the rocks might have lived and died, he describes only the present creation, which took place in six literal days, less than 6000 years ago."

In 1910 the Scofield Reference Bible, an immensely influential annotated edition of the King James Version, presented the gap theory as Christian orthodoxy, influencing millions of Fundamentalists and Pentecostals until late in the century. Harry Rimmer, perhaps the best known American antievolutionist during the second quarter of the century, and Jimmy Lee Swaggart, one of the most successful televangelists during the last quarter of the century, both endorsed the gap theory.

Numerous other Christians chose to harmonize Genesis and geology by interpreting the "days" of Genesis 1 as vast geological ages rather than twenty-four-hour periods. According to the nineteenth-century American naturalist Benjamin Silliman, a man widely known for his Christian piety, God in the beginning had instantaneously "created the heavens and the earth, and established the physical laws, the ordinances of heaven, by which the material world was to be governed." Subsequent to this act, our planet "was subjected to a long course of formation and arrangement, the object of which evidently was, to fit it for the reception, first of plants and animals, and finally of the human race."

In the early twentieth century this interpretation of the Genesis "days" enjoyed great popularity among conservative Christians, receiving the enthusiastic endorsement of such high-profile Fundamentalists as George Frederick Wright, author of the essay on evolution in The Fundamentals; William Bell Riley, founder of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association; and William Jennings Bryan, who led the crusade against evolution in the early 1920s.
...
During the first two thirds of the twentieth century, during which most Christian fundamentalists accepted the existence of long geological ages, the leading voice arguing for the recent creation of life on earth in six literal days was George McCready Price (1870-1963), a scientifically self-taught creationist and teacher. Born and reared in the Maritime Provinces of Canada, Price as a youth joined the Seventh-day Adventists, a small religious group founded and still led by a prophetess named Ellen G. White, whom Adventists regarded as being divinely inspired. Following one of her trance-like "visions" White claimed actually to have witnessed the Creation, which occurred in a literal week. She also taught that Noah’s flood had sculpted the surface of the earth, burying the plants and animals found in the fossil record, and that the Christian Sabbath should be celebrated on Saturday rather than Sunday, as a memorial of a six-day creation.

Shortly after the turn of the century Price dedicated his life to a scientific defense of White’s version of earth history: the creation of all life on earth no more than about 6,000 years ago and a global deluge over 2,000 years before the birth of Christ that had deposited most of the fossil-bearing rocks. Convinced that theories of organic evolution rested primarily on the notion of geological ages, Price aimed his strongest artillery at the geological foundation rather than at the biological superstructure. For a decade and a half Price’s writings circulated mainly among his coreligionists, but by the late 1910s he was increasingly reaching non-Adventist audiences. In 1926, at the height of the antievolution crusade, the journal Science described Price as "the principal scientific authority of the Fundamentalists. That he was, but with a twist. Although virtually all of the leading antievolutionists of the day, including William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes trial, lauded Price’s critique of evolution, none of them saw any biblical reason to abandon belief in the antiquity of life on earth for what Price called "flood geology." Not until the 1970s did Price’s views, rechristened "creation science," become fundamentalist orthodoxy.
https://counterbalance.org/history/history-print.html

You're special pleading.

Don't ignore the evidence, Barb.

https://answersingenesis.org/christianity/church/the-early-church-on-creation/

Yours is a very modern revision of God's word.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Barbarian, and as you were just shown, your statement is false. The belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century AD.

See above. No point in denial.

Exactly, Barbarian, you shouldn't deny that the belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century AD, which is evidenced by church history.

How God produced man is completely irrelevant to the point of Genesis.

Again, BECAUSE PAUL SAID that death entered through sin, there could not have been death prior to Adam.

No point denying what scripture says, Barb.

The first man and woman disobeyed God and in doing so, died spiritually.

No disagreement there.

That is the point of Jesus coming to save us.

And yet, that has little to do with what Paul said, which is that death came AFTER and BECAUSE OF Adam.

Again, there was no death before Adam sinned, spiritual or otherwise.

Your additions are completely unnecessary.

What additions?

Here you're imagining that evolution means there couldn't have been a real Adam and Eve.

Is it not a belief of some theistic evolutionists (not all, of course) that Adam and Eve were a group of about 200 or so ape-like creatures?

It's your misunderstanding of science and Genesis that's holding you back here.

Says the one ignoring church history on this matter, which shows that the belief that the earth is young is at least as old as the first century.

Let it be God's way,

You can't even get that verse right, what makes you think that you have the scripture we're talking about correct?

and you won't be worried about it any more. It's not that you're going to hell for being a YE creationist; God doesn't care if you approve of the way He created things. He cares if you repent of your sins and follow what Jesus told you. Unless you make an idol of your new YE doctrines, it won't endanger your salvation at all. You're dangerously close to doing that. Be careful and have the humility to know you could be wrong.

You're bloviating again instead of talking about the subject matter. I know this is difficult for you Barb, but do try to stay on topic.

 

[Yorzhik]

Much of the human genome is still made of viral parts. Whether those parts are "useful" depends greatly on point of view and lots of data we don't have. What it does tell us is that the human genome looks like the product of a long period of evolution, not a perfect thing that's been damaged for a few thousand years.

In other words, you are saying you don't know anything for sure except that it's common descent. I hope you realize you are also claiming to know what perfect DNA is.

Viral parts becoming part of human DNA are laughable without a designer to control how the virus enters the system without destroying the system.
That viral parts come with advanced usable functions for humans is laughable unless that was the design.
The similarities to virus parts as if viruses invaded the human system is tenuous at best.

If there were a global flood most of the plant species alive today would be dead. So, magical hyperevolution is your "solution", I guess?

What do you mean by hyperevolution?

Does adaptation exist and how does it work? Is it different than mutation+natural selection?

It made hundreds of thousands of plant species appear out of nowhere? That's one miraculous flood.

Do you mean dead plants came to life from the mud or that ferns turned into oaks?

What is the current explanation from creationists? Or do you only read what common descentists say about the flood?