Another problem for evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by UTEOTW, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that another transitional fossil has been found. This time between Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy).

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/05/ethiopia.hominid.ap/index.html

    Don't the scientists know that every time they fill in another gap in the fossil record with another transitional fossil that they are really creating two new gaps?

    We all know that this new transitional fossil proves that evolution cannot be true because now where we had one gap, we have two.
     
  2. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/missing.asp

    That article describes perfectly the role 'facts' or 'transitional fossils' play. In fact, they are not transitional fossils, but rather discreet creatures that God created that way - or (according to observable science) creatures that speciated by a loss of information.

    You see, evolution scientists pre-suppose (aka assume) that there should be 'transsitional fossils'. According to Darwin, there should litteraly be billions upon billions of these transitional fossils. We should find them everywhere. Yet real observational science has only a small handful of debateable examples. If evolution happened - there should be billions of clear cut, indisputable examples. Still to this day, science has not been able to demonstrate one definitive example of new information has ever arisen from nothing (matter does not spontaneously give rise to information). Yet the entire theory of evolution hinges or hangs upon that principle. Therefore it can be seen that evolution depends entirely on one's belief in a yet unproven hypothesis - one that observational science simply has not (and cannot) authenticate definitively.

    Therefore, it seems pretty clear to me that evolution is a belief system based on faith. Clearly, no one was there to observe the formation of the earth (except God - who's eyewitness account contradicts evolution). No one was there to observe evolution happening, culminating in Human beings. There is ABSOLUTELY no observational evidence (unless you counn't God's Word, the Bible) to the origin of the earth. Evolution is a view of world history - not operational science. Evolution is forensic science, not something we can duplicate or observe in a lab. As such there are "gaps" and things that are "missing" from the model. Evolution is man's best attempt to try to explain how the earth and life upon it came into existance in a naturalistic way - assuming that God didn't do it as the Bible describes.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/missing.asp

    This article describes the role that assumptions play in Evolutionary thinking.
     
  3. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does posting the same link twice double up the "information?"

    This link is fallacious in that it uses an analogy in an attempt to make a point that is unlike anything in the real case. The data that allows transitional fossils to be identified is nothing like looking at two arcs that were drawn for no reason other than to try and prove a point.

    "Still to this day, science has not been able to demonstrate one definitive example of new information has ever arisen from nothing (matter does not spontaneously give rise to information)."

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Then why did you fail the information challenge so badly?

    http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/21.html?

    You could not address all the example given to your so I narrowed it down to three examples for you. We never got a definition of information that we can used to judge potential cases of new information. And for two of the three, you did not even bother to address the examples provided to you. The one time that you did address the example given, you did not make a factual case for why it was not an increase. Of course that may be difficult to do without defining infomation. You merely asserted that it did not count.

    Just give us a specific and succinct definition of information that we can use to judge potential examples.

    Then tell us why duplication and mutation is not new information even though it generates new genetic information that performs new functions and makes new proteins.

    Then tell why that if duplication and mutation has been observed to lead to new genes and functions, which is what evolution needs, why it should matter if that fits your contrived definition of information in the first place.

    Maybe I should say your undefined, contrived definition of information.
     
  4. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/canada/newsletters/0205lead.asp


    Email to a friend Email to a friend printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version
    ‘Free of the burden of evolution?’

    5 March 2005

    In the December 2004 issue of Creation magazine, Ken Ham wrote an article called ‘He could have done it that way couldn’t He?’ This article really resonated with our speakers. When out on ministry they often hear comments that go something like this. ‘If He wanted to, God could have used evolution or created over millions of years.’ And ‘As long as we understand He’s the Creator that’s all that matters.’

    As Ken said, their usual reply is ‘It’s not a matter of what God could have done, but what He said He did!’

    Such a nice sounding ‘God could do anything He wants to’, or ‘I don’t limit God to six days’ approach is really aimed at putting our speakers on the defensive. That’s why they reply the way they do, because those statements are really just more compromise views that do not take God at His Word. Think about this for a moment. How could you trust the plain meaning of anything you read in the Bible if you apply the ‘it could have meant this or that’ principle?

    The problem is that most of the people that make these comments often don’t realize that they have been influenced by ideas that have started from outside of Scripture, and then want to make God’s Word fit what the secular (and fallible) scientists of the day want to believe. This is because most think that the ‘facts’ of science speak for themselves not realizing that the evidence is always interpreted within a framework of belief. Many have also not considered that the very reason such scientists want to believe in evolution and millions of years is to completely dispense with the need for a creator in the first place. So in effect, such a compromise actually plays straight into the hands of the unbelievers. It’s a dangerous game that undermines faith in God’s Word.

    On the other hand, if all God’s people actually started with the Bible instead of the other way around, what a vibrant church it would be.

    This is yet another way that evolution and it’s long ages not only undermine His Word, but can also ‘sap the life’ out of Christians, and thus, the church because there are no absolutes in Scripture that they can trust. In contrast, after having our speakers’ own mental ‘stumbling blocks’ about the accuracy of God’s Word removed they remember a time when they could say, ‘no matter what the Scripture says, I believe it.’ Suddenly there was a hunger to study and understand God through the reading of His Word.
    Free at last

    Brad J. emailed to describe his renewed faith after having his own ‘stumbling blocks’ removed.

    ‘For many years I was a theistic evolutionist who felt the God of the Universe simply “tweaked” man as history progressed over millions of years. … I stumbled across your website … . I am writing this to joyfully tell you how I have been freed of the lies of Satan and the world and have been freed to a newfound aspect of my relationship with Jesus Christ. My life has found a new joy … free of the burden of evolution’s sinful and doubt-laced falsehood. Thank you for remaining faithful, AiG, and for taking the battle to those that would use doubt and man’s fallible rational thought in challenging our God’s Word of Truth. May God continue to use you to serve Him and to continue to reach others as you have reached me. (I will continue to pray for your ministry every day.)’

    Brad, like many others who have benefited from AiG’s ministry, is now ‘free from the burden of evolution’ because of the realization that ‘God did it the way He said He did’. Can you imagine what effect the church would have on our society today if the majority of Christians really took God at His Word from the very first verse? Would you like to see a vibrant church? Then let’s lift the burden of and the doubts about God’s Word. Come on folks, let’s make a joyful (creationist) noise for the Lord by supporting creation ministries and getting the information out there.
     
  5. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    Copy and paste. Boring. You did not even bother to remove the links at the top for emailing and printing. [​IMG] How about making your own argument?

    It is still nothing but assertions that yours MUST be the right way to interpret the passages in question. This despite your interpretation being at odds with all of God's creation.

    But you avoid the questions posed to you. You make these assertions about "information" yet you cannot even be bothered to properly define for us what you mean by information.

    You cannot tell us why we should not consider duplication and mutation to be one sufficient mechanism for generating this new "information" (which you will not specifically define for us) when it has been shown to have the ability to generate new genetic sequences that give new functions to the organism. This is sufficient for natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms to use to generate new species.

    I have also bumped a thread for you on the Grand Canyon. You made some specific charges about the Grand Canyon in the information thread so I pulled them out for you and started a new thread. You ignored it. Here is the link. I am very interested in how you explain the meanders and the angular uncomformities and the various layers.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/29.html

    There was another topic on Snowball earth you ignored, so I have bumped it also. Please explain all the observations in a coherent theory for us. I am very interested in how you explain the wide breadth of material.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/18.html

    You also ignored a thread on ice cores. So I have added some more information and brought it back to the top. Please explain all of the observations.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/10.html
     
  6. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_10September2001.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp

    I have neither the time nor inclination to waste any more of my valuable time on you, UTEOTW. No matter what I say or how logical the argument, you are consumed by your religous faith in evolution. I can only point you to the information - if you are truely interested in the truth, and not arguing for the sake of argument, you will research it for yourself.

    Personally, I choose to be consumed by religous faith in God's Word as absolute truth and infallible. UTEOTW, remember, you and Galatian once accused me of "idolizing the Bible". Well, you have idolized evolution - it is your master. You cannot serve two masters... you must serve God or man... not both. This argument is a perfect illustration of where your loyalty lies.

    BTW - you have YET to fulfill the challenge I have given you numerous times - to start with the Bible and show how Genesis describes evolution. You have not... you cannot. They are entirely contradictory. You have chosen to believe the lie, and no ammount of teaching from me is going to change that. You have to get into the Word and discover this on your own.
     
  7. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have no logical argument to make! You have no information to provide!

    For example, where is you definition for "information?" A simple question which you have avoided like the plague. You are simply happy to make assertions and copy and paste information that you have no means of verifying.

    I guess this means you have no facts nor arguments to make on these subjects.

    My loyalty here is to end the lie of YE for the betterment of everyone.
     
  8. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
  9. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting. You start with Man's fallible philosophy, come to a conclusion that contradicts the Bible, then claim to use that contradiction to scripture to "end the lie of YE for the betterment of everyone".

    YE, on the other hand, starts with the Bible and scripture as ultimate truth, tries to make logical reasoning based on THAT assumption... and the results MUST agree with scripture or they are thrown out.

    Again - I would say that this demonstrates conclusively that your loyalty is to man and his fallible intellect, rather than to God & His Word (which are one).

    Funny that Adam did the same thing - trusted what he could see even though it contradicted God's Word and as a result gave up eternal life for all mankind.
     
  10. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    ---- but then again, you should just remind yourself that I am not your intellectual equal and the things I say need not be taken seriously as I am but an ignorant YEC.

    ;)
     
  11. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Grand Canyon:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/grand_canyon.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/limestone.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/link.asp?http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-210.htm
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v15n1_grandcanyon.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/grandcanyon.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/noah.asp
    "
    [/1]
    Not even bothering to copy and paste now. Just providing links. No original thought. No original words. Not even a summary.

    And not even relevant.

    You should at least look at what the questions are before you start linking. What, did you just go to AIG and search on "Grand Canyon" and copy the first several hits?

    Nothing in here discusses how the meanders formed.

    Nothing in here discusses the formation of angular unconformities.

    Nothing that I saw discussed how to separate out the various layers. There are sandstone layers in there. Just how did windblown sand get deposited in the middle of a flood.
     
  12. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Snowball Earth:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/snowball.asp&qt=snowball+earth&col=&n=1
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/focus.asp&qt=snowball+earth&col=&n=3
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/link.asp?http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-168.htm



    What is this. Another set of links you got from searching on a few keywords.

    I was look for how you would explain the multiple layers repeating a cycle with tropical glacial deposits, the cap dolostones, the paradox having these two close by implies (extreme cold followed by extreme warmth), the associated BIF, and the excursions of the carbon isotopes through this period.

    Your links do not even attempt to address this. You really should find out what the question is before answering.
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Ice Cores:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/Link.asp?http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-226.htm
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0331icecore_response.asp
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v11n1_icecore.asp

    "

    Did you just go search on "ice cores" this time?

    Your links do not address the specific questions posed to you. Maybe that is why you only posted links. You could not even find something close to addressing the issues to cut and paste so you thought maybe a flood of links would do the trick.
     
  14. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Definition of information:
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp

    "

    Definition of a lack of infomation. Again nothing but an endless supply of links.

    Give us a succinct, specific definition of information.

    Tell us why duplication and mutation that keads to new genes with new functions does not count.

    And tell us why that should even matter if that new genes and new functions from that process is usfficient for evolution to proceed no matter how YOU define things.
     
  15. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pearls to the swine - I spent too much time and effort already trying to reason with you, UTEOTW. Your dogmatic religous zealousness for evolution knows not logic, or reason. You have chosen your master, Satan, and he leads and guides you into everlasting confusion.
     
  16. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    YE is a lie of the devil. It divides believers with it untruths. It convinces unbelieveres that Christians must lie and distort to support thier believes. It chases Christians from their faith when they learn the truth. It takes honest Christians and deludes them and convinces them to spread its lies.

    YE is one of the greatest threats to the church today. Why do you think I am willing to devote so much time to defeat this evil? I certainly don't fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to rule out God so he can do as he wishes. YE is an evil, false doctrine that needs to be thrown off before it does any more harm.

    You must know that YE has nothing to stand on or else you would defend it factually. Your inaction betrays that you know that there is no factual support for YE. How long can you even avoid giving us a simple, succinct, specific definition of "information." You are challenged on the facts and the best you can do is talk about "assumptions." There are no facts to support your position.

    You know that there is nothing religious about evolution. It like any other science rests on the facts.

    You know that evolution is not of the devil. It canot be, for it is the truth. That you must resort to such rhetoric underscores how weak your position must really be.

    You cannot give a working definiton of "information." You cannot explain the meanders and angular unconformities at the Grand Canyon. You cannot make sense of all the various aspects of the ice core data. You cannot give a reason to have multiple layers that follow the pattern of glacially rafted rocks, followed by cap dolostones and banded iron formations with the particular isotopic carbon patterns that are observed.

    You have no answer for any of this so you instead bow out with a bit of slander and rhetoric. You had not posted here in a while and made the choice to pop back in recently and jump right back into the debate. If you really thought it a waste of time you would have just stayed away. Instead you have no answers so you slander a bit and avoid giving answers.

    The facts are against you and you know it.
     
  17. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    Wow... pretty strong words considering NO WHERE in the Bible do you find millions of years or long earth age supported. The Bible is very clear in telling us that the earth is young. You disbelieve even the Flood. These are all truths from THE BIBLE. You claim to be some sort of Christian, yet you do not even believe the book that christian faith is based upon.

    Moreover, you take a direct contradiction to that Bible your faith is entirely based upon and hold that up as ultimate truth rather than what the Bible says. Then, you have the ignorance to come here and claim that YE is a lie from the devil? Wow... you are astoundingly decieved.

    Well since the YE position is based on what the BIble says, and the OE position was thought up to contradict what the Bible says, I would that this once again prooves your confusion. Moreover, the Bible says that THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE - not a contradiction to the truth.

    Teaching evolution - a conjecture that is contradictory to scripture - teaches unbelievers that the BIble cannot be trusted... that man's ideas are better than God's ideas... and that MAN and not GOD decides truth. If you can't trust the truth of Genesis, the creation, and the flood then why should you trust the bit about Jesus - especially when Jesus quotes genesis as literal truth.

    Here you are again touting science and human knowledge as truth - infering that it's a higher truth than scripture. Therein lies your first and greatest mistake. You see, you are taught by secular academia that evolution is fact - however, you are not told the truth - that it is mere conjecture with no solid proof - based upon a set of assumptions that contradict the Bible.

    Again, you call the Bible a lie. YE simply interprets evidence and facts based on the assumption that the BIble is true. If anything contradicts the Bible it is thrown out.

    Evolution, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that the BIble is wrong - that things happened naturally instead of supernaturally as the Bible describes.

    Actually, evolution is a very deep threat to the church. Look at what it did to the church of England, for example. The church there is all but dead now - they have let evolution and millions of years replace Biblical authority as ultimate truth.

    If you look at Paul's ministry in the BIble... you will see that he uses the creation message several times when speaking with Gentiles. This is a remarkably effective witnessing tool.

    Because your master is Satan.

    Yet you so ademently refuse to accept a position consistent with the Word of God. You are who who wishes to define god for himself, rather than believe the Bible. You are a coward who would rather avoid secular criticism than stand for the Bible you profess to believe.

    Today it's YE... next week what is next - the virgin birth perhaps? How can a human virgin give birth... that's scientifically impossible! Then what - maybe go after Jesus as being actually God... what scientific evidence is there that God could become a man? I mean science just can't prove that. The only proof we have is that book (the Bible) that makes these wild claims. But we all know those Jews were influenced by the Babylonian religions. Next you will say there is no way that Jesus actually rose from the dead... that's physically impossible. He must have never died, or else it was a fabrication. Surely if we look scientifically at the story we can come to some conclusions about what parts of the new testament are embellished fantasy and what actually happened. You start editing scripture in Genesis, and you will eventually have to go all the way with it.

    For one - I have defending it factually - you rejected those arguments. But more importantly, I don't need to present ANY scientific facts. All I need is a copy of Genesis 1-11. That tells me exactly what happened. The Bible is far more accurate than any scientific textbook will ever be.

    That's just it... I have given you that definition numerous times. You rattle on how it doesn't agree with Shannon's information ideas. I have summed it up on my own words... I have simplified it... I have given you everything you asked for, yet you are unwilling to consider it.

    On the contrary - evolution is more a belief system than real science. Please name the evolutionary scientists who were there at the creation of the earth and all the life upon it. I am interested to hear the names of those you know who observed it forming. After all, science is entirely based on observation. Yet not one single shred of molecules to man evoluiton has ever been witnessed. Moreover, the basis for the entire belief system relies on assumptions that are, themselves impossible to prove or disprove - for example the uniformitarian mindset. The primary assumption is that everything evolved naturally without supernatural influence as stated in the Bible. All evidence interpreted through the evolutionary religous view must adhere strictly to the pre-supposition of a naturalistic means to going from nothing existing to human beings existing. It is that a priori committment to an atheistic worldview that should be your first clue that you are worshipping the wrong master. Turn to Jesus - let the Bible be your teacher and guide. Let it be ultimate truth rather than a humanistic worldview.

    Facts prove nothing in and of themselves... they must be interpreted. All facts are interpreted based on the set of pre-suppositions or assumptions one starts with. Old earthers and young earthers make different assumptions and use those assumptions to interpret the facts. YE list of assumptions are written down - we call it The Bible... everything written in there is our pre-suppositional basis for how we interpret the evidence.

    No, evolution is not the devil... evolution is a form of humanism - which comes from the devil. The first record of it was when the devil decieved eve in the garden of eden - he contradicted God's Word and eve believed him without interpreting the facts based on God's Word rather than a humanistic worldview that the devil presented.

    Facts are meaningless without interpretation. Unlike you, I have an answer to the question - how did we get here, or why are we here. Those answesrs are laid out precisely in Gensis.
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a simple propositition.

    The Bible must be true if properly interpreted.
    All the evidence of God's own creation shows that He used long periods of time to create.
    Therefore your interpretation must be wrong.

    There was a nice 10 page dissertation on how to distract when you don't have an answer. But fallacies of distraction do not count as logical arguments. And like all fallacies, when you are forced to use them, it betrays the weakness f your position. Otherwise, you'd just argue the facts. It was also a lot of words from someone who said he was through. Of course it was also strange for someone to reappear after several months, inject himself back into a debate, then to immediately bow out when challenged saying he had spent to much time already. If that were true, you would have just stayed away.

    But, you brought back up one of your favorite buzzwords. The one where interpretation is the problem.

    Well why have you not taken the opportunity?

    Look at the multiple, successive layers of glacially rafted ice followed by thick dolostones and banded iron with a distinct anomoly of carbon isotopes and interpret that in a way that shows that the the young earth mechanism better explains the observations than the OE.

    Look at the meanders and angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon and other formations and give us the specific YE interpretation that better explains the observations that what we have.

    Look at all the various aspects of the ice cores and give us the YE interpretation of that that fits the data better than anything else out there.

    What is your interpretation of why whales have scores of pseudogenes for an olfactory system identical to that of land animals? While you are at it, you might as well cover all the aspects of this thread. http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/23.html?

    What is your succinct, specific definition of "information?"

    What is your better interpretation of all the items on this thread about human evolution? http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/66/19.html?
     
  19. Gup20

    Gup20
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,184
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Bible is ultimate truth regardless of how we choose to interpret it. Clearly, a correct interpretation will give us a clue what that truth is. This is why ALL young earth ideas MUST, as the primary consideration, fit within the framework of the Bible.

    You say all the evidence of God's creation shows that he used long periods of time to create. However, when you interpret that evidence under a different set of assumptions - for example the YE assumption that the Bible is true - it can be easily seen that all the evidence of God's creation points to short periods of time. For example, you say that rock layers laid down at the rates we see today point to an old earth. We say that if you take the Bible into account - specifically a global flood - you can easily see how these layers of rock were laid down within the framwork of time the Bible describes (which is an approximately 6000 year old earth).

    You don't even believe in Noah's flood! Yet you say you believe the Bible? That is clear evidence you DON'T believe the Bible.

    You continue to try to use humanist rationalle to convince me that the Bible isn't true. We went through a 20 page topic where you were asked repeatedly to give answers and reasoning from scipture to support evolution. You could not. You were unable to offer a single shred of support for evolution. You keep trying to waive your hands enought to distract from THE POINT - which is that evolution contradicts the Bible and no matter how hard you try you can never escape that fact. You categorically reject any model that is consistent with scripture. Keep in mind that creationist models are just that - models. If it's not found in scripture, then it's open to interpretation and revision. But the things that ARE in scripture are not open to revision. For example, that the earth was created by God in six days (not millions of years), that God created animals from nothing, and that all animals do not have a common ancestor. Also that there was a global flood where every land animal or person not on Noah's Ark died.

    Evolution science says that the earth has been around for millions and billions of years. The Bible says that it was created in six days. Jesus said that man has been here 'from the beginning'. If the earth is a billion years old, and man has only been here a few thousand years, then we were kind of a blip at the end - not here from the beginning.

    Evolution science says that all life has a common ancestor. The Bible says that all flesh is NOT the same flesh. 1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

    It is disingenous, and at the very least inconsistent to think that evolution and scripture have any compatibility whatsoever.
     

Share This Page

Loading...