Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[JohnR7]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Original: ארץ
- Transliteration: 'erets
- Phonetic: eh'-rets

The three Hebrew letters that make up this word have symbolic meaning. So we can understand the meaning of the word when we study the letters that make up the word. 

 

[JohnR7]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The problem for anyone believing that the speed of light has changed significantly is that it tied to other physical constants like radioactive decay.    If it had been significantly faster in the past, the increase radiation would have fried all living things on Earth.

Yes if you go faster than the speed of light you increase the decay rate accordingly. 

[JohnR7]

12 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Scripture teaches that there were dinosaurs on earth at the tike of noah!

That is not possible for dinosaurs and man to survive together. We have ice core samples from that time and the air bubbles in the ice show us that the atmosphere was very different at the time of the dinosaurs. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)  When the "windows of heaven were opened" this changed the atmosphere. This could explain why people can only live 120 years after Noah's flood. Before the flood they did not age and Adam lived 930 years.  We are told that Adam gave 70 years of his life to David. Everyone we find before Adam and Eve were killed at the age of 30 from our perspective they all died in the prime of life. 

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't care that Biblical creationists and secularist disagree about history. But I object to the deceptive rhetorical bluster that tries to position the secular position as the natural default in the discussion - because that claim of self-superior legitimacy does not hold up to logical scrutiny.

For those following along, when the question is "Do you have any evidence" and the response is over 400 words devoid of any evidence - that should tell you something.

 

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

Are you seriously asking me to 'prove a negative'? You permit yourself the right to base your argument on the lack-of-evidence fallacy (Argument from Ignorance) – but now I have become somehow obligated to rebut your fallacious argument with actual facts (or “evidence”)? That is not fair-minded.

There is an abundance of evidence that junk DNA - and a LOT of it - exists. You postulate that it doesn't exist, we just haven't discovered all of the functions yet. So you are rebutting the existence of junk DNA by offering a postulate that is completely lacking in supporting data.

You see, there is a definite pattern to your argumentation. You hypothesize that light must have traveled at vastly different speeds, or that radioactive decay rates must have been vastly different, or that the amount of junk DNA is vastly overrated, all without any sort of evidence to support these hypotheses. There is nothing unfair about pointing all of this out.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

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

I was being facetious. I admit, this is not good form in a conversation, particularly when it is unclear. Forgive me.

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

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

I posted it earlier, but I'll do it again.

Quote

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

 

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

God stretched out the heavens, as I posted.

That is not evidence. This is something that must be accepted on faith.

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

Adam began to die when he ate the forbidden fruit

That isn't what the Bible says, friend. You are spinning what the Bible says into what you want it to say - exactly what I (and others that share my beliefs) are routinely accused of. You demand that everyone use the plain reading of the Bible - until the plain reading doesn't say what you want it to say.

5 hours ago, David1701 said:

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.

You are missing the obvious point that the resurrection does not reanimate the old body. This is resurrection on a non-physical (what I call spiritual) level.

5 hours ago, David1701 said:

I have proved above that the dust was literal

You have done nothing of the sort. Getting angry and using all caps does nothing to strengthen your argument.

5 hours ago, David1701 said:

You have just contradicted yourself!  "I do not know.." is an admission of UNBELIEF.

I do not "refuse to believe" that Adam and Eve were created exactly as described. However, you are sidetracking yourself. Regardless of a literal or figurative creation - you and I both believe God created Adam and Eve, they were created in the image of God, and they are our progenitors. Your outrage is misplaced.

 

 

[David1701]

4 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

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.  

This has nothing to do with what I posted; although, it appears that your arrogance has resurfaced.

Eden was a specific area, which Adam and Eve were to cultivate; however, after they sinned, they were banished from it.  The worldwide flood destroyed all people and vertebrates, except those on the ark , which means that it not only destroyed the ecosystem in Eden, but all the rest of the world as well.

This is not difficult to understand, so I'm unsure what your difficulty is.

[JohnR7]

2 minutes ago, David1701 said:

it appears that your arrogance has resurfaced.

Did I hit a nerve when I pointed out that is is obvious you did not do your homework?  

[David1701]

Just now, JohnR7 said:

Did I hit a nerve when I pointed out that is is obvious you did not do your homework?  

Don't be stupid.  You insinuated, in an insulting way, that I'd not done my homework, whilst providing nothing to substantiate it.  You also ignored what I'd stated previously and offered no counter-evidence.

I can see that your aim is to feel superior (the reality appears to be very different), so I'll leave you to it.

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I was being facetious. I admit, this is not good form in a conversation, particularly when it is unclear. Forgive me.

Certainly - I forgive you.

Quote

 

I posted it earlier, but I'll do it again.

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

 

Thank you.

He appears to be contradicting himself, to some extent; and, since he does not give any examples of the "evidence" for evolution, I'm none the wiser.

Quote

 

That is not evidence. This is something that must be accepted on faith.

 

What the Bible says is guaranteed to be true, by God.  I'd call that evidence.

Now, if you had said that the quote is insufficiently specific, then I would have to agree that it, in itself, does not prove that the speed of light was temporarily greatly increased; nevertheless, as I mentioned, even secular cosmologists have something broadly similar (although the timescales and details are different), called "inflation".

Quote

That isn't what the Bible says, friend. You are spinning what the Bible says into what you want it to say - exactly what I (and others that share my beliefs) are routinely accused of. You demand that everyone use the plain reading of the Bible - until the plain reading doesn't say what you want it to say.

I'm no Hebrew expert; but I have read that the construction used in Gen. 2:17 can be understood in an ingressive sense (the beginning of an action, state or event) and some translations  translate it this way.

Gen. 2:17 (EXB) but you must not eat the fruit from the tree ·which gives the [T of the] knowledge of good and evil [C eating from this tree would make Adam, not God, the determiner of right and wrong]. If you ever eat fruit from that tree, you will [L certainly] die!”

Gen. 2:17 (GW) But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

Gen. 2:17 (ICB) But you must not eat the fruit from the tree which gives the knowledge of good and evil. If you ever eat fruit from that tree, you will die!”

Gen. 2:17 (NOG) But you must never eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when you eat from it, you will certainly die.”

Gen. 2:17 (NCV) but you must not eat the fruit from the tree which gives the knowledge of good and evil. If you ever eat fruit from that tree, you will die!”

Gen. 2:17 (NET)  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Gen. 2:17 (NIRV) But you must not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you do, you will certainly die.

Gen. 2:17 (NIV)  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Gen. 2:17 (NLT) except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.

Gen. 2:17 (TLV) But of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you must not eat. For when you eat from it, you most assuredly will die!

 

Quote

You are missing the obvious point that the resurrection does not reanimate the old body. This is resurrection on a non-physical (what I call spiritual) level.

1 Cor. 15 is about bodily resurrection.  Our physical bodies are brought back to life, but changed to be incorruptible.

Quote

You have done nothing of the sort. Getting angry and using all caps does nothing to strengthen your argument.

I wasn't getting angry.  I use caps for emphasis; but I sometimes forget that some people call it "shouting".  I'll try to remember to limit myself to using bold or underlining in future.

Quote

I do not "refuse to believe" that Adam and Eve were created exactly as described. However, you are sidetracking yourself. Regardless of a literal or figurative creation - you and I both believe God created Adam and Eve, they were created in the image of God, and they are our progenitors. Your outrage is misplaced.

Do you believe that mankind evolved from lower creatures or not?

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, Guest theElect777 said:

I completely am aware of the Scientific explanation. 

If you were, you would know that there is no way such a feature could be formed by a sudden rush of water.   Physically impossible.   And once you bring in unscriptural miracles, then any fairy tale is equally likely.