Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[David1701]

13 hours ago, HAZARD said:

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).

 

 

Gen. 1:1,2 (VW)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void, with darkness on the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The earth was unformed and unfilled, as yet, and there was no light, because God had not created light yet.  There is nothing here about men already existing, before God had created the first man (Adam).

Jer. 4:22-27 (VW)

22 For My people are foolish; they have not known Me; they are foolish children, and they have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23 I looked on the earth, and, lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I looked on the mountains, and, lo, they quaked; and all the hills moved to and fro.
25 I looked, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled.
26 I looked, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down at the presence of Jehovah, before His fierce anger.
27 For thus Jehovah has said, The whole land shall be desolate, yet I will not make a full end.

This is prophetic imagery, comparing the land of Judea to creation, before the earth had been formed or filled.

2 Pet. 3:5-6 (VW)

5 For of this they are willfully ignorant: that by the Word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

Verse 5 is how the earth was before Noah's flood.  Verse 6 refers to Noah's flood.

The world of the ungodly perished and God started a new, much changed, world, with Noah, his sons and their wives.

Gen. 1:3-2:25 is about God's creation of the heavens and earth.  There is absolutely no suggestion that this is recreation.

Is. 45:18 (VW) For thus says Jehovah who Created the heavens, God who has formed the earth and made it; who has established it, who has not created it void, but has formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah, and there is no other.

God did not create the earth to be empty but to be inhabited.  Which is what He did.  He created animals, plants and humans, who multiplied and inhabited the earth.

Eph. 3:11 (VW) according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,

I'm unsure what point you are trying to make with this verse.

Quote

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

The whole world of the wicked was destroyed and God started again with righteous Noah and his family.  The ark is a type of Christ, in whom the elect are saved, meanwhile the world of the wicked will be destroyed, when the Lord returns.

Edited August 19, 2020 by David1701
typo

[David1701]

12 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

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. 

 

Eden was empty of people, ever since Adam and Eve were banished, so it was definitely not only Eden that was destroyed!

Noah did not take any plants with him on the ark (except for food), nor did he take invertebrates.

[David1701]

12 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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

So you no longer claim to have been guessing.  Make your mind up.

I'd want to see what he said for myself, because many people confuse evidence with interpretations (or use the word "evidence" loosely).

Quote

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

God stretched out the heavens, as I posted.  Secular science posits "inflation", which is a similar concept, but omitting God.  In both cases, the universe would have expanded at many times the speed of light, temporarily.

It's very complicated.  If you really want to find out about it, then I recommend researching it, rather than asking me to post the details, which are not suitable for forum posts (anyway I'm not an expert).

The modern creation view of cosmology is well explained by Spike Psarris.

Quote

 

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.

 

This is false.

Adam began to die when he ate the forbidden fruit, both spiritually and physically.  This is what the Bible means.

That it refers to physical death and not merely spiritual death, is irrefutable.

Gen. 3:17-19 (VW)

17 And to Adam He said, Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you have been taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

This both confirms that physical death was part of the curse and that Adam was literally created from dust and was not the culmination of evolution.

1 Cor. 15:20-22 (VW)

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since through man came death, through Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam everyone dies, even so in Christ everyone shall be made alive.

This whole passage is about bodily resurrection, which means that the death referred to is physical death.

Quote

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".

You have just contradicted yourself!  "I do not know.." is an admission of UNBELIEF.  I have proved above that the dust was literal, so now you have more information and should repent of this unbelief.

 

[David1701]

13 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

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. 

Eight humans and the requisite number of air-breathing vertebrates were saved on the ark.

[David1701]

12 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

You just do not know enough about science to have a conversation.

In your arrogant opinion.

Quote

You are correct that the world was one big continent before the flood. So do you believe there were dinosaurs on the earth at the time of Noah?

Yes, of course there were.

There are still a few left today.  Alligators, tortoises, crocodiles and komodo dragons are all dinosaurs.

[David1701]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There is no evidence for that and the Bible does not say the flood of Noah was global.

That doesn't say it was global, either.   Which makes sense; there's no sign of a global flood.

It doesn't say "the whole earth."  It says the whole land (erets).  Which means "my land", "hereabouts", "this nation", and so on, but does not mean "the world."   The Hebrew word for "world" is "tebel", not "erets."

Strong's Concordance

tebel: world

Original Word: תֵּבֵל
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: tebel
Phonetic Spelling: (tay-bale')
Definition: world

Strong's Concordance

erets: earth, land

Original Word: אֶרֶץ
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: erets
Phonetic Spelling: (eh'-rets)
Definition: earth, land

Strong's is really a concordance, with superficial glosses of the words.  Here is the BDB lexicon's entry for "erets" (this is one of the main Hebrew lexicons).

- Original: ארץ
- Transliteration: 'erets
- Phonetic: eh'-rets
- Definition:  
1.  land, earth    
-a.  earth    
--1.  whole earth (as opposed to a part)   
--2.  earth (as opposed to heaven)   
--3.  earth (inhabitants)    
-b.  land    
--1.  country, territory   
--2.  district, region   
--3.  tribal territory   
--4.  piece of ground   
--5.  land of Canaan, Israel   
--6.  inhabitants of land   
--7.  Sheol, land without return, (under) world   
--8.  city (-state)    
-c.  ground, surface of the earth    
--1.  ground   
--2.  soil    
-d.  (in phrases)    
--1.  people of the land   
--2.  space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)   
--3.  level or plain country   
--4.  land of the living   
--5.  end(s) of the earth    
-e.  (almost wholly late in usage)    
--1.  lands, countries  1e  
-f.  often in contrast to Canaan 
- Origin: from an unused root probably meaning to be firm
- TWOT entry: 167
- Part(s) of speech: Noun Feminine 

As we can see, your claim is false.  While it CAN mean a specific country or territory, its main meaning is more comprehensive (whole earth, as opposed to a part).

The sedimentary layers are sometimes thousands of miles wide (i.e. enormous floods).  The modern creation models involve recurring tsunamis, in different directions, before the earth was entirely covered, producing many layers of sediment.

There would also have been instability leading to other earthquakes, floods, etc., on a smaller scale, after the flood.

Edited August 19, 2020 by David1701
formatting

[Tristen]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Of course they can.   We can, for example, see today how entrenched meanders and old meandering streams are formed.   ...

Hi Barbarian,

You said, “Of course they can. We can, for example, see today how entrenched meanders and old meandering streams are formed. Hydrology very clearly shows how those things happen under specific condition, which can be shown to happen in the area of the Colorado river. Would you like to see some more detail on those things that can show us why the Colorado River formed as it has?”

If you've found a way to perform an experiment in the past, I'd be happy to take a look. What I suspect you have are experiments performed in the present, then, based on observations of experimental results, and given naturalistic and/or uniformitarian assumptions, a story of the past has been imagined to account for those facts.

NOTE: This is not me criticising the method. But we need to make the logical distinction between precise mathematical confidence that is generated using the Scientific Method (i.e. using experimentation to test hypotheses about current natural phenomena), and the anecdotal confidence generated using the historical method (i.e. imagining a possible history to account for the facts).

 

“Todd Wood happens to be a PhD scientist who is also a YE creationist. He's merely being honest about the evidence, and prefers his understanding of scripture to the evidence”

I also have post-graduate scientific credentials. Are you saying that I, or anyone who disagrees with Dr Wood, is being dishonest? Your arguments here are approaching logic fallacies (e.g. Appeals to Expertise and Innuendo).

 

“The key for you, is that neither your (nor Todd Wood's) presuppostions make any of the evidence go away”

I am more than happy to address any fact. I don't need any fact to “go away”.

 

“Wood is honest about this, but he also knows the evidence which is what it is, as he freely admits”

I'm not questioning that he is being honest about what he thinks. But you seem to be insinuating (without any supporting rational argument), that creationists who disagree with him are being dishonest.

 

“If not for his presuppositions, he'd accept the evidence as it is”

All “evidence” incorporates interpretation, and therefore presupposition. The word “evidence” means facts that have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as “evidence” of that position). I fully “accept” every fact “as it is”. The raw facts don't objectively, independently support either model of history.

Without secular “presuppositions”, he might “accept” my interpretation of the facts (or “evidence”) “as it is”. No fact is interpreted in a logical vacuum.

 

 

[Guest theElect777]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No possible way.   A sudden flood will not produce meanders like this.    Geologists know precisely how these form,and it's not from a sudden flood. Would you like to learn how they form?

 

 

I completely am aware of the Scientific explanation.  In fact, it has always reminded me of when Ronald Reagan was President and his proposal of Reaganomics where over a long period of time the wealthy's incomes would generate overflow and trickle down to everyone else hahahahahaha

 

But I am putting my Spin to this from the perspective of GOD!   What He wanted the Grand Canyon to look like.   I firmly believe God is laughing His butt off over at humanity sitting around making foolish attempts to explain what He did.   After all, He did say, "His Ways completely fools the Wise."   And the Wisest people we have are getting million dollar grants to Discover the unknowns.   I cannot wait to be with God and to know everything to see just how far off Science really is.   I have no doubt some things will be close.   But I still find it ironic the NAMES given by animals, trees, plants, insects, etc we still use today.   Grant it, as variations take place we do assign our own names to newly discovered Species.   But in simple terms, we have some Faith in Adam (if you're Atheist) because a horse is still a horse today and so forth.

[JohnR7]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Eden was empty of people, ever since Adam and Eve were banished, so it was definitely not only Eden that was destroyed!

What I am referring to is found in your High School Biology book. In the state I live in, it is required to read the Biology book to get a degree from High School. If you can not pass the test, then they give you a different piece of paper that says you put the time in, but you did not learn anything. I told my son when he was in high school not to argue with anyone but just read the book. That is exactly what he did.  

[JohnR7]

2 hours ago, theElect777 said:

 What He wanted the Grand Canyon to look like. 

I love geology because you can read it like a book. I was disappointed they did not teach us more about this in grade school. God has preserved a lot of evidence for us in the earth. He wants us to know what He is doing. He not only wants us to know, He wants us to be a part of the creation process. When I am out working on the garden everything is watching me: the birds, the bees, the cats. They simply do not have the ability to be a gardener and take care of creation they way we do. God made Adam to take care of the Garden of Eden.