Creationists: Have you ever read a book about Evolution?

a reply to: sweets777

Are you just trolling the thread now? He clearly posted the science based links that show you are completely wrong in your assumption about thermodynamics conflicting with evolution as well as the missing link misnomer. This leads me to believe that you have indeed not read anything about the above subjects above. He's not just bashing religious folks. He's asking the people that bash evolution if they know anything about it, because in 99% of the threads created here, this is the case.

Evolution debates do not exist. Evolution denial exists, but has no justification. Evolution has nothing to do with god, but the vast majority of evolution deniers are religious and do it for religious reasons. To me it's pretty silly to attempt to debate something you know nothing about. Just saying.

a reply to: Barcs

That's precisely what I've observed here as well.

originally posted by: Barcs
Why try to reconcile Genesis with science when it conflicts in more ways than just the age of the earth and evolutionary timeline? For the Genesis account to be accurate you pretty much need to throw away the sciences of geology, biology and the laws of physics. The only option to reconcile Genesis with reality is to interpret it completely as a metaphor because there are numerous conflicts with the timeline and order of creation (not just the sun).

Show me where Genesis 1 conflicts with science?

According to the bible, whales were created before the rest of mammals. This is completely bogus.

So you are an expert on 5000 year old Hebrew? You know for sure that the "the great sea-monsters" refers to whales?

ETA
Do you realize that your fixation with things having to be stated in a scientific manner that satisfies your rules is a socially engineered response? The vast majority of society today (the 3/4 that is not Westernized) and of the past would have considered your need to do this as eccentric. You would be seen like the professor in Back To The Future, crazy but not hurting anyone. So based on this need you are going to call the Bible bogus. The Bible was never meant to be a scientific text book written after the rules of science paper writing were established in the last century. But it is correct when it does touch on these matters all the same.

originally posted by: Cinrad

It was late and I made a mistake, one species can evolve in to two if a population gets isolated long enough like horses and donkeys. What the creationists are saying is that this will never lead to another kind, you wont get dogs, cats, bears, otters from the same common ancestor and definitely not reptiles and birds from amphibians. You night have got all bears from a common ancestor, maybe foxes, hyenas and wolves from another, or maybe not. We don't know what the borders are and it definitely wouldn't fit in to today's definition of species. If we did know, it would make a great basis for taxonomy.

First off, taxonomy is merely a classification system. While it provides a methodology for examining relationships between populations there is no clear cut boundary. What you are trying to use is the micro vs macro argument (whose goal posts you have moved back to accommodate hybrid species). Where this argument fails (aside from misappropriating the terms) is because it requires a specific genetic boundary to be in place. You cannot have hybrid species if micro and macro were separate processes; therefore, if you can have different species cross that taxonomic barrier in certain circumstances, then the only reason we don't see it across broader taxonomic terms is due to the same reason certain populations that are merely subdivided into species categories are. That reason is because they have separated enough genetically that they cannot reproduce naturally together. Now another point, if you cannot have any compatabilty between broader taxonomic classifications, you would not be able to apply genes artificially at least in the manner in which we do between these broader taxonomic populations. IE: Goats would not be able to house spidersilk glands. Viruses would not be able to cross over between families either.

This is how I read Genesis, bearing in mind that a day is just a period of time.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The big bang or however He did it. Then 10 billion odd years later, when the universe had progressed enough to make rocky planets with a good mix of elements he turned His attention to the Earth

Gen 1:2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
The sun gets to critical mass and nuclear fission start, probably blowing all the dust outwards leaving only the heavy rocky planets in their orbits

Except the sun and solar system formed billions of years after numerous other similar solar systems formed...

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Except the solar system was form billions of years after nmerous other solar systems formed...

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (firmament is the "sky" whatever that is), so the Earth cooled to a point where there water condensed and formed an ocean and clouds and there was an atmosphere, but the atmosphere was still dense and thick.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Dry land appears, light continental crust as opposed to dense sea plates.
Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after their kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
Plants, probably starting with algae and seaweed,and He progressed to grass and trees

Except it said nothing about plants in the water, which would have actually started as bacteria. This is an incorrect conclusion you made based on knowledge about how life started in order to justify the genesis account. Secondly, it clearly separates earth from sea, and plants are only put on earth which adds to to this conclusion.

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

So we know the moon is not a light but rather a reflection of sunlight off a rocky body. We also know that this was not known until approximately the 15th century with the invention of the telescope. We also know the sun moon and stars were not formed at the same time.

Notice something? It is pretty much exactly the same sequence science has found evidence for. How would they have known this 5000 years ago? What are the chances of this being sequence being chosen by chance? And remember this is not a science book, it was written to tell us why we are here, which answer is in there if you look.

I've run out of characters to go through the rest but you are drawing faulty conclusions from the text that you want to confirm your bias. It does not match up with how things actually formed.

originally posted by: Cinrad
Show me where Genesis 1 conflicts with science?

Start with the very first line. According to the laws of physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, but here is god breaking the laws of physics and creating energy out of nothing.

This pretty much makes every single day of biblical creation invalid. Do we really need to go through line by line (as I have done numerous times in the past) highlighting all the conflicts? There are dozens of them. Either the entire Torah is a metaphor to teach people to trust and believe in god, or it is meant to be a literal account of creation and establishment of laws. We know it's not literal (as you have said based on a year to god being a different arbitrary time period), so in order to rectify it with science, it is likely you will need to add all kinds of plot devices and guesses that are not mentioned in the texts themselves.

According to the bible, whales were created before the rest of mammals. This is completely bogus.

So you are an expert on 5000 year old Hebrew? You know for sure that the "the great sea-monsters" refers to whales?

Which interpretation do you follow? NIV states that all life in which the water teemed was created on that particular day.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it,

Are whales not living things that move about in the water?

Other notable contradictions.

-Light created before the sun and stars
-Land plants created before life in the ocean
-Birds created before land animals
-No evidence of a global flood (it would be obvious in geological records)

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Also it clearly says that evening came, and then morning came on several of the days, so the explanation that 1 day to god is 1,000,000,000 years does not hold any weight. Why would it refer to evening and morning if the author was not talking about literal days?

Do you realize that your fixation with things having to be stated in a scientific manner that satisfies your rules is a socially engineered response?

Do you realize that your fixation with rectifying a faith based world view with modern science to satisfy your faith in the bible is a socially engineered response, from decades (if not centuries) of brainwashing with religious texts?

Sorry but I don't believe anything blindly. There is nothing about science that is social engineering. It is based on testable experiments and their results.

The vast majority of society today (the 3/4 that is not Westernized) and of the past would have considered your need to do this as eccentric. You would be seen like the professor in Back To The Future, crazy but not hurting anyone.

I don't care what other people claim is eccentric. TODAY, people consider interpreting the bible (or Quaran) literally to be a bad thing that leads to extremism. All I'm saying is keep the science and faith separate. There is no reason to try to justify a faith based belief system. By definition is it FAITH BASED and subject to interpretation. Science is not.

So based on this need you are going to call the Bible bogus. The Bible was never meant to be a scientific text book written after the rules of science paper writing were established in the last century. But it is correct when it does touch on these matters all the same.

No. I was referring to a single claim in the bible as bogus. We know Whales and Birds came long after land animals. There is no debate on this. We know light does not exist without a source of light. The bible is a large book that is essentially a compilation book written by dozens of different people over a thousand year time period. One claim within it does not make the entire thing right or wrong. People often mistakenly analyze the bible as one long on going story, but that is simply not the case. It was assembled by man and dozens of scriptures were intentionally left out and destroyed because they didn't coincide with what they wanted Christianity to become for society.

With that said, it's kind of funny that you would argue that science is a socially engineered response, when that exact thing is the primary reason why religions like Christianity are still around. I was force fed religion as a kid. We were taught not to question it. The problem is I know how to think critically, and as I learned more about science and the REAL world, the less sense the bible made.

a reply to: piney

You must not have done too much research on carbon dating, because if you did you'd know that the half-life of carbon isn't NEARLY long enough to track changes in evolution thus isn't used as evidence to prove evolution.

To me the earth is 7000 years old
And man is 6000 years old

Can you give observable evidence of this being true?

originally posted by: Barcs

According to the bible, whales were created before the rest of mammals. This is completely bogus.

So you are an expert on 5000 year old Hebrew? You know for sure that the "the great sea-monsters" refers to whales?

Which interpretation do you follow? NIV states that all life in which the water teemed was created on that particular day.

The NIV is not the Bible, it is a translation of what was written, so because you interpret what it says a certain way, does not mean that is necessarily the way it was intended when written. Like I said, are you an expert on 5000 year old Hebrew? Your argument is based on an English translation which has to find a balance between literal word for word translation and intended meaning, the intended meaning cannot always be known, though a lot of scholarship over the last 100 years is making it clearer.

-Light created before the sun and stars
-Land plants created before life in the ocean
-Birds created before land animals
-No evidence of a global flood (it would be obvious in geological records)

Did you even read my post going through Genesis 1? this is about Creationism but as for the flood, more than one scientist has conceded that the geological remains of the end of the last ice age might well have been a global flood. Again, the flood need not be global, Genesis just says it covered the world, in Hebrew this could mean the planet Earth or all the people who lived in the world (survives in English to this day as "the whole world knows you don't iron your shirt whilst it is on) or the area of the world that was inhabited by that time. So there is a lot more this than your simplistic, patronizing, condescending, arguments, but don't worry Christians are stupid, they don't know when they are being taken for a ride or confronted with logical fallacies, right? So here is a challenge for you, what other way could "the great sea-monsters" be understood to mean? * Hint, try Google.

originally posted by: Cinrad

Did you even read my post going through Genesis 1? this is about Creationism but as for the flood, more than one scientist has conceded that the geological remains of the end of the last ice age might well have been a global flood. Again, the flood need not be global, Genesis just says it covered the world, in Hebrew this could mean the planet Earth or all the people who lived in the world (survives in English to this day as "the whole world knows you don't iron your shirt whilst it is on) or the area of the world that was inhabited by that time. So there is a lot more this than your simplistic, patronizing, condescending, arguments, but don't worry Christians are stupid, they don't know when they are being taken for a ride or confronted with logical fallacies, right? So here is a challenge for you, what other way could "the great sea-monsters" be understood to mean? * Hint, try Google.

There is zero evidence of a global flood. We know there were regional floods (some of which coming with the retreating glaciers, though the physics and geology work just find explaining without it being God's intervention) some with catastrophic effects; however, there is not a single credible geologist that would support the global flood idea because the evidence shows the exact opposite, it did not happen. You also back track and go the regional flood route as an explanation, which is not how the story in the bible works. You are adding your own inference into the mix to justify your bias.

As for the rest of this, considering there are no small amount of Christians in science that understand how the science works without having to force it into their faith, it would be foolish to start making such claims. The one who is working with fallacies atm is none other than yourself. As an aside, sailors told tales of mermaids, country folk in Europe spun yarns about werewolves and vampires, the Greeks used dinosaur and extinct mammal bones to prove the legends and myths of giants. So how does googling sea monsters prove anything in the bible?

originally posted by: Cinrad


The NIV is not the Bible, it is a translation of what was written, so because you interpret what it says a certain way, does not mean that is necessarily the way it was intended when written. Like I said, are you an expert on 5000 year old Hebrew?

Nobody is an expert in 5000 year old Hebrew. Hebrew script didn't exist in the 3rd millennia BPE. Paleontologistset-Hebrew didn't exist prior to the 10th century BPE. Ironic isn't it that you're calling out someone else when you don't even have the basics down?

Your argument is based on an English translation which has to find a balance between literal word for word translation and intended meaning, the intended meaning cannot always be known, though a lot of scholarship over the last 100 years is making it clearer.

So, the intended meaning can not always be known... Except apparently by you? Outstanding! What specifically is your linguistic background again? Since nobody else knows Hebrew except for you of course.

Did you even read my post going through Genesis 1? this is about Creationism but as for the flood, more than one scientist has conceded that the geological remains of the end of the last ice age might well have been a global flood.

More than one? Well that certainly is a specific number. Can you cite some of these scientists and tell me what their field of expertise is?

Again, the flood need not be global, Genesis just says it covered the world, in Hebrew this could mean the planet Earth or all the people who lived in the world (survives in English to this day as "the whole world knows you don't iron your shirt whilst it is on) or the area of the world that was inhabited by that time.

So which is it? Science supports a worldwide flood event that never happened or a version of Hebrew that magically existed 2 millennia prior to paleo-Hebrew becoming distinct from Phoenician supports a regional flood hypothesis? Typical, you want to have your cake and eat it too while propping up your supposition with science thst exists only in your own mind. Just a little FYI... The time frame that the Noachian Flood is supposed to have occurred... The "area of the world thst was inhabited by that time" was everywhere but Antarctica. This is still true if you attempt to tie the flood event in with the end of the LGM. So we're back to a world wide flood. A flood there is absolutely zero evidence for in the geological record.


quote]So there is a lot more this than your simplistic, patronizing, condescending, arguments, but don't worry Christians are stupid, they don't know when they are being taken for a ride or confronted with logical fallacies, right? So here is a challenge for you, what other way could "the great sea-monsters" be understood to mean? * Hint, try Google.

Hint... Try a library card. Or just say what you mean, if you can. You're all over the place with your backtracking its hard to keep track of what point you're pushing. Just for the record, nobody is saying Christians are stupid. There's roughly a billion and a half Christians worldwide. Our species would be doomed if all were stupid. With that said, literalists who believe that the Pentautuch and modern science are compatible could do with do,e remedial education. This doesn't mean they're stuoid. Just ignorant beyond belief.

originally posted by: Cypress

There is zero evidence of a global flood.

There is lots of evidence for a global flood.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Nobody is an expert in 5000 year old Hebrew. Hebrew script didn't exist in the 3rd millennia BPE. Paleontologistset-Hebrew didn't exist prior to the 10th century BPE. Ironic isn't it that you're calling out someone else when you don't even have the basics down?

So, the intended meaning can not always be known... Except apparently by you? Outstanding! What specifically is your linguistic background again? Since nobody else knows Hebrew except for you of course.

Never said I was an expert and you have missed the whole point of my post in your rush to flame with made up premises. I studied exegesis, it is a course taught in all Bible colleges, you don't have to be an expert in Hebrew of any age to see that there are lots of ways to interpret Genesis. And you studied Genesis when? Oh, you didn't? But you still think that it says what you say it says? Hint: try understanding an argument that you have pre-judged as BS before ejaculating your derogatory ramblings.

You all complain of not being able to have an honest intellectual argument with a creationist, funny that because I complain of the same thing with evolutionists/the-bible-cannot-possibly-truists/the-bible-is wrong-in-very-detailists.

Did you even read my post going through Genesis 1? And if you did, you still think it does not fit in with main stream science current theories of the formation of the Earth?

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: Cypress

There is zero evidence of a global flood.

There is lots of evidence for a global flood.

There is absolutely none at all.

originally posted by: Cinrad


Never said I was an expert and you have missed the whole point of my post in your rush to flame with made up premises.

I know you're not an expert. Otherwise you wouldn't make a ridiculous statement about 5 KA Hebrew script thst wouldn't exist for another 2 millennia.

I studied exegesis, it is a course taught in all Bible colleges, you don't have to be an expert in Hebrew of any age to see that there are lots of ways to interpret Genesis.

Yes, I'm well aware of what exegesis is. You may not have to be an expert in Hebrew to study so,Rome else's imterpretstiins of scripture but it's rsther ironic and extremely hypocritical to call someone out and make a glaring error while doing so.

And you studied Genesis when? Oh, you didn't?

Would you like a hand removing your foot from your mouth? I studied for several years actually in preparation for seminary.

But you still think that it says what you say it says? Hint: try understanding an argument that you have pre-judged as BS before ejaculating your derogatory ramblings.

Calling out your ignorance and hypocrisy isn't derogstory just because it bothers you. I know it says what I think it says.

You all complain of not being able to have an honest intellectual argument with a creationist, funny that because I complain of the same thing with evolutionists/the-bible-cannot-possibly-truists/the-bible-is wrong-in-very-detailists.

Congratulations? I'm not sure who "you all" is, but it's not me. I know better than to expect an intellectual dialogue with people who are far more ignorant in regards to the science they try to deny than they will ever know. What's an evolutionist anyway? I'm an anthropologist, not an evolutionist. Or should I cry that calling me such is derogatory? The bible isn't sciemce. Doesn't support sciemce and doesn't compliment it. Especially when you start trying to claim that there was a worldwide flood. Please feel free to show evidence for a worldwide flood event. I'm curious what there is that is so convincing to you despite there being nothing in the geological record/column to support it.

Did you even read my post going through Genesis 1? And if you did, you still think it does not fit in with main stream science current theories of the formation of the Earth?

I did. It does not.

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: Cypress

There is zero evidence of a global flood.

There is lots of evidence for a global flood.

Let me guess.. Your evidence for the geology we observe is for magic rock fairies making strata out of pixie dust?

For a theory to be valid it must fit all the evidence, not some conclusion you have reached a priori.

What the rocks say

I don't have to travel very far to make this case. There's a slab of polished rock on the wall outside my department office that refutes so-called Flood Geology: the view that a global, world-shattering flood explains geologic history after the initial creation of Earth by God. This eight-foot-long slab is a conglomerate – a rock made from water-worked fragments of older rocks.
It's what you'd get if you buried a riverbed composed of many different types of rock deep enough below ground for temperature and pressure to forge it into a new rock. Preserved in it, you can see the original particles of sand, gravel and cobbles made of various kinds of rock. And if you look closely you can see some of the cobbles are themselves conglomerates—rocks within rocks.
Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock. It requires another pass through the whole cycle to turn the second pile of sedimentary rock fragments into another conglomerate.
In other words, this one rock shows that there is more to the geologic record than creationists describe in their scripturally-interpreted version of earth history. A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves. This, of course, is no surprise to geologists who have established that the world is billions of years old, far older than the thousands of years that creationists infer from adding up the generations enumerated in the Bible.

phys.org...

I've read tons of resources regarding evolution...but I still have trouble grasping the concept completely.

My main problems being the rise of complex features and their correlating functions along with the lack of any "credible"(imo at least) origins theory...

I've never attempted to discredit evolution...all my questions have been sincere. That's not to say I am ignorant...I just don't completely grasp the concept. It's like a child who has trouble understanding math...it's not that he's ignorant...he just doesn't quite get it....not yet.


I understand that if there are multiple organisms in...let's say a harsh environment such as the arctic...then certain traits are going to be beneficial....Any organisms that are bright and stand out and aren't fully prepared for the cold are obviously going to die....and the ones that survive will obviously be able to reproduce and their traits/genetics what have you will be preserved through future generations....all that is fine and dandy.
What I don't understand is how...let's say a polar bear...can somehow, given enough time...become something other than a polar bear. I mean...for the last 500 million years(possibly more) jelly fish have been jelly fish....to me it just doesn't make sense...

A2D

originally posted by: flyingfish

Let me guess.. Your evidence for the geology we observe is for magic rock fairies making strata out of pixie dust?

Yes out of pixie dust, correct.

And what is yours based on? Out of bulldust? See anyone can make derogatory remarks. I could include a hand picked article that supports my side of the argument, just like you did, but what's the point?
Your contribution to this thread has been absolutely zero.

originally posted by: Cinrad

originally posted by: flyingfish

Let me guess.. Your evidence for the geology we observe is for magic rock fairies making strata out of pixie dust?

Yes out of pixie dust, correct.

And what is yours based on? Out of bulldust? See anyone can make derogatory remarks. I could include a hand picked article that supports my side of the argument, just like you did, but what's the point?
Your contribution to this thread has been absolutely zero.

Evidence is the point! You have made a claim of evidence, then let's see your hand picked article.
And for your information if one "hand picked article" does not work for you I could supply pages of data aside from geology that would further prove a global flood is unsupported.

Quit dancing around and post your evidence! And why your at it, explain away the strata, without magic rock fairies!

a reply to: Cinrad
Here is the same translated verse from the ASV, which is widely regarded as the most literal word for word version of the bible out there.

And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

So again, are whales not living creatures that moveth in the waters?

The same contradictions are all there, even in the most literal translations. Instead of telling me that I'm not a Hebrew expert, perhaps you could demonstrate where the translations are different. It doesn't resolve any of the issues with the accuracy of the verses, nor does it resolve the conflict I mentioned with the laws of physics.

So there is a lot more this than your simplistic, patronizing, condescending, arguments

Condescending? You are the one that told me my response was socially engineered.

So here is a challenge for you, what other way could "the great sea-monsters" be understood to mean? * Hint, try Google.

Here's a hint. "Great sea-monsters" is a red herring. Please re-read the verse and note the part I put in bold. I'm not debating the meaning of great sea monsters, the verse literally says that all life in the ocean was made on that day. Unless whales, dolphins, walruses, and other marine mammals are not considered things that live and move in the water, then the verse is wrong, plain and simple. Even the literal versions all have birds being created prior to land animals. Again, we know this is wrong.

a reply to: flyingfish

What is the point of posting the evidence, it would take a thousand years of arguing back and forth before you or I were convinced otherwise to what we already believe, this thread has drifted from its original intent (or maybe the intent was always to get it to where you would browbeat people who dont believe that main stream science media is an impartial reporter of the evidence) and is now pointless. Well not really pointless, but I wont be bothered spending a thousand years posting back and forth. This is how me posting evidence would go: 1) I post a few links to papers that agree with Genesis; 2) you post 3 papers that show my paper is bull#; 3) I respond to each of your three papers, each time taking longer to go back in the main stream science media to address specific points about a technique and how the original developers reported the limitations of thier technique, or to point out how the data can be interpreted another way; 4) you post reports that have to do with what I am referring to and and reports that dont and 5) whilst we argue about which reports are correct we bring in other points from previous posts and then; 6) we decide that we have got a life and you or I dont really matter that much to you or I. It is a no win situation, if you really want my proof, you will find it in exactly the same place I would - the internet. And if you're still reading at this point I take my hat off to you, I have had enough of the bull# and dont really care anymore what lies you have swallowed. I dont think anyone else is reading anymore so we can probably stop shilling each other anyway.

originally posted by: peter vlar

And you studied Genesis when? Oh, you didn't?

Would you like a hand removing your foot from your mouth? I studied for several years actually in preparation for seminary.

I dont believe you. Prove it. What is the purpose of Genesis 2?