Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[David1701]

1 hour ago, JohnR7 said:

I understand what the word of God is saying. I have studied the Hebrew extensively.  There are two words for Earth: erets and adamah.   There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. They are a perfect match and they compliment each other to help us come to a better understanding of the Bible. God has give us artifacts and natural evidence like fossils to help us better understand what He has done. He wants us to know.  I have studied science and ancient history for over 50 years and I have studied the Bible for over 40 years.  Sometimes I spend up to 12 hours a day to read and study. A lot more than I did in college when I would maybe study for up to 5 hours a day. Most people will not understand Genesis until they get to Heaven and then everything will be explained to them there. 

The Bible and science do indeed complement each other.

Now, how would you explain that God informed the world that he was going to wipe it out, killing all air-breathing creatures (except those on the ark); that we are then told that he did exactly that; and that we are then told that he promised never to do it again?  It makes no sense whatever, if you "interpret" it as a local flood.

[JohnR7]

39 minutes ago, HAZARD said:

When we speak of the six days and the creation of the present life on Earth, we can speak with Bible authority that it was about 6000 years ago.

Jesus was born 4,000 years after Adam. They both lived 33 years free from sin. The Church age began on the day of Pentecost in what I believe was the year 29 AD. So I look for the end of the Church age and the beginning of the Kingdom age to be in the year 2029.  The point is the 6,000 years are exact. "Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. " (Genesis 22:4) We are very close to the end of the second day and the beginning of the third day. Abraham saw the time we are now living in. 

[David1701]

1 hour ago, HAZARD said:

Your not the only one who thinks its nonsense. Peter, in (2 Peter 3:3-7) taught that scoffers were totally ignorant of the flood that destroyed the social system and the earth "that then was" (lucifers flood). These scoffers all knew of Noah's flood and still know today. This proves that the truth of the flood that destroyed the original creation was hidden from them, while they knew about Noah's flood.

This doctrin is simple for most men to understand, so they reject it. Especially the churches for some reason. I have never heard a priest or pastor talk about these things until I found a book called, “God’s Plan For Man, by Finis Jennings Dake.”

2 Peter 3:5-7 expresses this clearly in plain human language, "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing (emerging) out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, PERISHED:

But the heavens and the Earth, WHICH ARE NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

This is where people become confused and say the world "that then was," was the world before Noah's flood, but this cannot be because:

If the world that THAT THEN WAS" is that between Adam and the flood of Noah, then God created The heavens and the Earth WHICH ARE NOW" since the flood of Noah. Noah and his family lived prior to his flood and after it. The world "THAT THEN WAS PERISHED" and everything in it also perished. What change could Noah's flood make to the heavens? None, for floods on Earth can never cover the heavens. The earth, vegetation, the heavens, all remained the same after Noah's flood.

Peter, in (2 Peter 3:3-7) taught that scoffers were totally ignorant of the flood that destroyed the social system and the earth "that then was" (lucifers flood). These scoffers all knew of Noah's flood and still know today. This proves that the truth of the flood that destroyed the original creation was hidden from them, while they knew about Noah's flood.

What was it that the scoffers were ignorant of unless it was the destruction of the social system before Adam?

This is the doctrin of which men are still ignorant of, which they call "the gap theory." Peter said that the scoffers were willingly ignorant of this truth showing that it is a clear doctrin of Scripture if men would stop being ignorant of it. There are many Scriptures that make this doctrin clear; so "If any man wants to be ignorant, let him be ignorant," as Paul expressed in (1 Cor. 14:38).

Peter said these scoffers of the last days, the days we are in now, since Noah, would be ignorant of the fact that the heavens were of old; that the social system ruled by Lucifer on the old Earth perished by water; that the heavens and the Earth since the six days of restoration are kept in store to be purified again- the next time by fire; that the Lord is not slack concerning His promises of final restoration of the earth to its third perfect state; and that God was longsuffering to all men, not willing that any should perish, but all come to repentance. In Isa. 14:12-14 we have statements which cannot possibly of an earthly King. The passage is universally refering to the fall of Satan. We can quote it and note the facts.

Peter was, of course, referring to Noah's flood.

There are MANY scoffers nowadays who deny that the world perished in Noah's flood.  Some of them are on this board.

The six days were CREATION, not restoration.

God is long-suffering TOWARDS US (the beloved elect), in 2 Pet. 3:9, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us should come to repentance, which is EXACTLY what happens.  This is confirmed in verse 15, when Peter tells us to consider that God's long-suffering is salvation.

2 Pet. 3:8,9, 15 (VW)

8 But, beloved, do not be unaware of this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

[Guest theElect777]

This is an open question for anyone.   There have been strong debates that within our own Galaxy we have Red Lines being ignored during the microwave calculation of the Universe's expansion in terms of dating the age.   Even if they counted the Red Lines correctly within our Galaxy, our Universe still would at least be around 9 billion years old.   That's the expansion rate currently.   Is it possible the Universe is not as old as Science claims?  Is it possible we are ignoring closer Red Lines to skew the age by expansion rate?   Is it possible if the expansion rate and our closest Red Lines aren't being calculated precisely that Earth is Younger than 4 Billion years old?

Edited August 18, 2020 by theElect777

[Guest theElect777]

I should proofread.  I type fast and then hit send.  By the time I reread, I've made 10 errors.

Edited August 18, 2020 by theElect777

[David1701]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Since the YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST scientist says that "gobs and gobs of evidence" exist for evolution, I'm gonna guess he means evidence.

Guesswork: okay, at least you're honest about it.

Quote

To be technically correct, it is a presupposition - but not one based on evolution. I am also operating on the presupposition that the universe did not pop into being last Thursday (or 5 minutes ago) and that memories were implanted in my head.

The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens (and secular science has something similar, called "inflation", in which the speed of light would have been increased ENORMOUSLY, temporarily).

Quote

At some point, one must admit that there are basic presuppositions that make sense and those that don't. The presupposition that the speed of light has been drastically different at some point in the past is a presupposition that is not backed by any sort of evidence.

Except that it is.

Quote

You are once again incorrect when telling me what I do or don't believe. Spiritual death did indeed come by sin.

Ah, that sneaky little modifying word "Spiritual"; did you think I wouldn't notice it?  I didn't say "spiritual death" came by sin, I said that death came by sin; and I meant spiritual AND physical death, as I think you know.

Quote

Unsurprisingly, you are wrong about this, as well. I've stated numerous times in posts you have replied to that God could have miraculously created Adam and Eve in a very literal fashion. You are so bent on discrediting everything I say that you completely ignore things I say that you agree with. You are not arguing in good faith.

You say this as if it were a good thing!  "Could have..." is hardly faith, now, is it?

God DID create Adam directly from the dust of the earth and he DID make Eve from one of Adam's ribs, because the Bible says so.

You claim to believe in evolution, which teaches that man evolved from lower kinds of creatures, over many millions of years.  Do you believe this or not?

Quote

And the trend continues.... I do believe creatures reproduce according to their kind. I've told you this, as well. "According to their kind" is hardly descriptive when there is obvious genetic variation from one generation to the next. I have challenged you to show me Biblical references that indicate that kinds cannot change and you have ignored them each time. I hardly think it is theologically important to disagree on something that the Bible never says.

Of course kinds cannot change, otherwise reproducing "according to its kind" would be meaningless.  There is variation within a kind; but kinds themselves do not change.

Quote

You are trying SO hard to pretend that our core theological values are different, but you can't convince anyone other than yourself.

I think that you have a desire to appear orthodox; but the gulf, in the area of origins, is vast.

[HAZARD]

20 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Peter was, of course, referring to Noah's flood.

There are MANY scoffers nowadays who deny that the world perished in Noah's flood.  Some of them are on this board.

The six days were CREATION, not restoration.

God is long-suffering TOWARDS US (the beloved elect), in 2 Pet. 3:9, not willing that any of us should perish but that all of us should come to repentance, which is EXACTLY what happens.  This is confirmed in verse 15, when Peter tells us to consider that God's long-suffering is salvation.

2 Pet. 3:8,9, 15 (VW)

8 But, beloved, do not be unaware of this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

Only if one refuses to believe these scriptures, and the many others I posted in an earlier post.

L.F. No man left on earth in Gen. 1:2 ; Jer. 4:23-26 ; 2 Pet. 3:5-6).

N.F. Eight men and women left after Noah's flood (Gen. 6:18 ; 8:15-22 ; 9:1-16 ; 1 Pet. 3:20).

 

L.F. Result: became necessary to make new life on earth (Gen. 1:3-2 : 25 ; Isa. 45:18 ; Eph. 3:11).

 

N.F. Results: no new creation made, for all men and animals were not destroyed (Gen. 6:18-8 : 22 ; 9:1-16).

[JohnR7]

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Now, how would you explain that God informed the world that he was going to wipe it out, killing all air-breathing creatures (except those on the ark); that we are then told that he did exactly that; and that we are then told that he promised never to do it again?  It makes no sense whatever, if you "interpret" it as a local flood.

I am glad you asked how I explain "it".  The world we are talking about is Adamah or Eden. This is what science calls cultivated plants and domesticated animals. We are not talking about wild plants and animals. To understand this we need to understand Science and what an ecosystem is. 

"Then the LORD said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. You are to take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and seven pairs of every kind of bird of the air, male and female, to preserve their offspring on the face of all the earth." (Genesis 7:1,2)

A worldwide flood is impossible. How did Noah get the Kangaroos from Australia on the Ark? How did Noah get the Panda bears from China on the ark? What about the Polar bears? He would have had to sail all over the world. Pick up all the plants and animals and after the flood take them back to the exact place he got them from. 

Also wild plants can not be put on an ark by definition. Only cultivated plants can be transported by man. That is what makes them a cultivated plant. This is what we call Botany and there are experts with PhD's at the universities in Jerusalem. They have written some books about the domestication of plants and animals in the middle east. Usually they keep to themselves though. 

I could write a book about all of this. God is infinite. Even John tells us all the books in the world would not be enough to contain what Jesus did. Noah's flood is an archetype of a worldwide flood that took place at the time of Pangea. That is why the story is written the way it is. Jonathan Cahn's book: "The Paradigm" explains what archetypes are.

Science tells us  900 thousand different kinds of living insects are known.  Do you really think Noah collected that many insects on the Ark? 

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Guesswork: okay, at least you're honest about it.

It's obvious that he means real evidence, or he wouldn't make the statement.

13 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Except that it is.

Ok, so you've claimed that your presupposition is backed by evidence. Is there any particular reason you refuse to supply the evidence?

14 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Ah, that sneaky little modifying word "Spiritual"; did you think I wouldn't notice it?  I didn't say "spiritual death" came by sin, I said that death came by sin; and I meant spiritual AND physical death, as I think you know.

I've already shown you why this is more consistent with the plain reading of the Bible:

1. God told Adam he would die the day he ate of the fruit.

2. Adam did not die physically.

3. Adam died in another capacity - presumably spiritually.

16 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You say this as if it were a good thing!  "Could have..." is hardly faith, now, is it?

God DID create Adam directly from the dust of the earth and he DID make Eve from one of Adam's ribs, because the Bible says so.

I do not know if the dust and "rib" were metaphorical or not. Regardless, your assertion was flat wrong - I do not "refuse to believe it".

19 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Of course kinds cannot change, otherwise reproducing "according to its kind" would be meaningless.  There is variation within a kind; but kinds themselves do not change.

No, I've offered an explanation that is both consistent with what the Bible actually says and is consistent with the scientific evidence.

 

20 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I think that you have a desire to appear orthodox; but the gulf, in the area of origins, is vast.

Being orthodox is of little concern to me. Being consistent with what the Bible affirms is of concern to me.

[JohnR7]

35 minutes ago, David1701 said:

killing all air-breathing creatures

Exactly, now you are onto something. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7) Now we have a different word to work with and define: "neshamah: breath".  Those that had the breath of life. Those that were living souls were saved on Noah's ark.