Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[Paul James]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Sure, a flood would be a very good explanation for such fossils. But to be evidence of Noah's flood, all of the evidence around each of these fossil finds would have to point to the exact same flood. Massive floods are not uncommon events, and it would be nearly impossible to state (even ignoring radiometric dating of the surrounding rock sediments) that they all came from the same flood.

If the fossils were formed at the top of the Andes, an animal would have to float up to the top of a mountain, and then be rapidly buried in sediment. This would not be physically possible. This would require massive amounts of sediments to float to the top of the water level, and then somehow come crashing down. Even YEC scientists acknowledge that the fossils were formed before the mountains (https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/). Virtually all trained geologists would agree that mountains rise over very long periods of time, instead of quite suddenly, as Dr. Snelling states, but they all agree that fossils were not deposited at the top of peaks nearly 30,000 feet high.

 

If this were the case, we would expect large modern animals (elephants, hippos, giraffes, etc) to be buried alongside dinosaurs. However, this mixing of large modern animals with dinosaurs has never been observed. The clear conclusion as that the dinosaurs were fossilized long before the modern animals we now see on the planet.

Since civilizations arose along major rivers that flooded annually, it is no surprise that flood stories are rather common. Multiple cultures with flood myths is not strong evidence for a single, global flood.

 

No, evolutionary theory is based on evidence, not dream. Evolution, in it simplest state, is the heritable change in populations over time. We can observe this happen directly. What can be observed directly now can be extrapolated backward through the analysis of the fossil record and the genetic record.

I generally think of religion as an active worship of something or someone that is greatly revered. There is no such entity or figure for evolution, it is simply a theory that works very well with massive amount of accumulated information - through the process of inductive reasoning.

Show me one piece of evidence, based on actual observation, testing, and replication, of the evolutionary process of one kind of organism to another, to demonstrate that the process of evolution fits within the scientific method.

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Paul James said:

Show me one piece of evidence, based on actual observation, testing, and replication, of the evolutionary process of one kind of organism to another, to demonstrate that the process of evolution fits within the scientific method.

Let's come to conclusions about our different views of topics before pushing them aside and moving on to something else. Do you agree or disagree that multiple major floods could have occurred that would explain fossils as you've described? Do you agree or disagree that fossils at mountaintops do not mean that the actual fossilization process took place at elevations near 30,000 feet? Do you agree or disagree that modern large animals should be in the fossil record with dinosaurs if they all perished in the same flood? 

[Paul James]

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Let's come to conclusions about our different views of topics before pushing them aside and moving on to something else. Do you agree or disagree that multiple major floods could have occurred that would explain fossils as you've described? Do you agree or disagree that fossils at mountaintops do not mean that the actual fossilization process took place at elevations near 30,000 feet? Do you agree or disagree that modern large animals should be in the fossil record with dinosaurs if they all perished in the same flood? 

If there were multiple major floods and not a global one, then we wouldn't have a fossil record, because all the animals and humans needed to do was to migrate to higher ground each time.  And the floodwaters would just have drained into the Persian gulf instead of risen "15 cubits" above the highest mountain and taken a whole year to drain away.   The only answer for the fossil record is that a global cataclysmic flood took place that instantly killed all the land animals.

Because the Bible description says that the fountains of the great deep came up, this meant a great disruption of the earth's crust that separated the land mass into the separate continents.  Mt Everest and the Andes did not exist before the flood, and were pushed up through the great pressures involved when the earth's crust erupted with water and mud, along with the greenhouse vapour level around the earth turning into torrential rain that swept all before it.  So, what we see high up in the mountains could very well have been at sea level before the mountains were thrust up to the heights they are now.  This speaks of the enormous pressures caused by the flood.   We are not talking of a minor local flood here, but a cataclysmic global event that totally changed the geography of the whole world.

I would expect that fossil records of all land animals would be evident because they all perished in the flood, and the existence of dinosaur skeletons which by the form in which they were found shows that they perished in a torrent of water, because the signs of where the water had flowed were there is the bones.

Also, Noah did take a pair of dinosaurs on the ark with him - not the very large ones, but smaller ones around the size of a sheep or goat.  They would have survived and repopulated the earth with the other animals and developed into different breeds through genetic diversity.   But were either hunted to extinction or just ran out of genetic information to survive, like any other animal types that have since become extinct.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Paul James said:

If there were multiple major floods and not a global one, then we wouldn't have a fossil record, because all the animals and humans needed to do was to migrate to higher ground each time.

Here is a link to some of the major mudslides in recent history.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/famous-mudslides-in-history.html

How would roughly 30,000 people die in the 1999 Vargas mudslide in Venezuela if all they needed to do was migrate to higher ground?

Natural disasters can easily produce the events needed for fossilization. If you really can't (or won't concede) a simple point like this, then we are both wasting our time trying to discuss anything science-related.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Paul James said:

Mt Everest and the Andes did not exist before the flood, and were pushed up through the great pressures involved when the earth's crust erupted with water and mud

In all fairness, you should admit this a complete reversal from your statement just a few posts ago:

"He can then go high up in the Andes and discover the same fossils there and conclude that the only way they they can get there is if they were washed there through a rise in the water level to that height."

You are tacitly admitting your error, but should be forthright that you are changing your position.

[Paul James]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Here is a link to some of the major mudslides in recent history.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/famous-mudslides-in-history.html

How would roughly 30,000 people die in the 1999 Vargas mudslide in Venezuela if all they needed to do was migrate to higher ground?

Natural disasters can easily produce the events needed for fossilization. If you really can't (or won't concede) a simple point like this, then we are both wasting our time trying to discuss anything science-related.

The point is that a cataclysmic global flood can be proved by science.  It is just that atheistic scientists don't want to interpret the evidence that way.  It is not a matter of the evidence not being there or it being quite clear that the flood occurred.  It is that atheistic scientists refuse to believe a flood occurred, so they are in denial about it because they refuse to allow a divine influence on their thinking.

[Paul James]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

In all fairness, you should admit this a complete reversal from your statement just a few posts ago:

"He can then go high up in the Andes and discover the same fossils there and conclude that the only way they they can get there is if they were washed there through a rise in the water level to that height."

You are tacitly admitting your error, but should be forthright that you are changing your position.

A scientist today and go up in the Andes and examine the sea life fossils that are clearly there, and that they could very conclude what I said.  I then spoke about how Mt Everest and the Andes were formed and were thrust up from the sea bed during the enormous forces of the flood.   I think you understand all this very well, but it seems that you are refusing to believe it, if you are being honest.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

The point is that a cataclysmic global flood can be proved by science.

This is not accurate. The existence of fossils does support flooding, but is nowhere close to proof of a global flood.

1 hour ago, Paul James said:

It is just that atheistic scientists don't want to interpret the evidence that way.

This is a conspiracy theory. It is just too much of a stretch to claim that the existence of fossils proves a global flood when localized floods happen routinely and can also lead to fossil formation.

[Paul James]

47 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is not accurate. The existence of fossils does support flooding, but is nowhere close to proof of a global flood.

This is a conspiracy theory. It is just too much of a stretch to claim that the existence of fossils proves a global flood when localized floods happen routinely and can also lead to fossil formation.

Every form of evolution that denies the literal history of Genesis 1-11 is the product of sinful man who is rebelling against God.  If a professing Christian accepts evolution as part of how he believes God created the world, then he is teaming up with sinful, rebellious man who replaces the truth of Genesis with the fairy story of evolution.  Therefore evolution is not the real problem.  It is the sinfulness of man who does not want to face up to a holy God to whom he is morally responsible.

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Paul James said:

Every form of evolution that denies the literal history of Genesis 1-11 is the product of sinful man who is rebelling against God.  If a professing Christian accepts evolution as part of how he believes God created the world, then he is teaming up with sinful, rebellious man who replaces the truth of Genesis with the fairy story of evolution.  Therefore evolution is not the real problem.  It is the sinfulness of man who does not want to face up to a holy God to whom he is morally responsible.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I will be bold enough to challenge false assertions and assumptions that are so frequently made by those that dismiss the evidence God has left in His creation as “fairy tale”.