Evolution's Achilles Heel ~ ~ Book, 9 Ph.D Scientists and Doctors ~ ~ Discussion

[Retrobyter]

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

By definition, it's necessary. 
Not according to the text.   No sun, literal mornings nor evenings. 

Shalom, The Barbarian.

No, it is NOT necessary, even by their definitions, for there to be a "sun" (Hebrew: shemesh) in order to have "evening" (`ereV : the change from THE LIGHT [ha'owr] to THE DARKNESS [hachoshekh) and "morning" (boqer : the change from THE DARKNESS to THE LIGHT). All that was needed was a steady stream of photons and a rotating earth.

The "sun" was ADDED to the definitions when the "sun" became the typical means by which these changes were realized, but the "sun" was NOT needed in the original definitions because the "shemesh" had not yet been created! And yet, the words `ereV and boqer were used in verses 1:5; 1:8; and 1:13 BEFORE Day Four!

The sun (shemesh) was not created until DAY FOUR! And, even then, it was "THE-FROM-LIGHT THE-GREATER" (hammaa'owr haggaadol) that was created FIRST and THEN the "round object" or "star" (kowkhaaV) associated with that "greater from-light" was created. The Hebrew word for "sun," "shemesh," wasn't even used in Genesis 1! Thus, the "sun" is not even MENTIONED in Genesis 1! It is "lumped together" with all the other "round objects" in the sky, which includes the galaxies, the stars, the planets, and the moons.

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

And even ancient Christians knew this.

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram

St. Augustine's time was the end of the Third Century A.D. and beginning of the Fourth Century A.D. Wikipedia says,

"Augustine (354-430 C.E.), originally named Aurelius Augustinus, was the Catholic bishop of Hippo in northern Africa."

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's a modern, YE creationist idea.   As you see, early Christians knew the "yom" of the creation story were not literal days.   And of course, Origen earlier pointed out what Augustine knew.

Origen existed before Augustine. He contributed to Augustine's error, but he was not responsible for it. Origen brought Greek philosophy to the churches before Augustine brought in his allegorical interpretations. That Augustine suspected that "yamiym" were not literal days, He still spoke of them that way:

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

"According to Augustine, the earth was brought into existence ex nihilo by a perfectly good and just God, who created man. The earth is not eternal; the earth, as well as time, has both a beginning and an end.

"Man, on the other hand, was brought into existence to endure eternally. Damnation is the just desert of all men because of the Fall of Adam, who, having been created with free will, chose to disrupt the perfectly good order established by God. As the result of Adam’s Fall, all human beings are heirs to the effects of Adam’s original sin, and all are vessels of pride, avarice, greed and self-interest.  For reasons known only to God, He has predestined some fixed number of men for salvation (as a display of His unmerited mercy—a purely gratuitous act altogether independent even of God’s foreknowledge of any good deeds those men might do while on earth), while most He has predestined for damnation as a just consequence of the Fall. The onward march of human history, then, constitutes the unfolding of the divine plan which will culminate in one or the other outcome for every member of the human family."

 

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You misunderstand.   St. Augustine and Origen were merely accepting the miracle as it was actually described by God.

No, it is you who misunderstands. Origen made the way possible for St. Augustine to allocate Greek philosophy (and unfortunately, Greek mythology) into Christian thinking and theology. Augustine, who was just another man, brought in his ideas of allegorical thinking, which allowed "yamiym" to be REPRESENTATIVE "days" for something else, even for longer-than-previously-considered time periods. You're reading too much into the philosophies of both men.

20 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm just confirming what the Bible says.    YE adds material to the text.

I've repeatedly shown you that the Bible takes no position on evolution, to support or deny it.   You might as well expect the Bible to have a position on protons.

Hmmm... "repeatedly." Seems like I could say the same thing. OE adds TIME to the text! The Bible may allow for what YOU have defined as "evolution" and I call "variations," but it does NOT allow for "common ancestry!" God said these things:

Genesis 1:26-28 (KJV)

26 And God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them,

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

That's not similarity nor is it common ancestry. That's distinction and dissimilarity! The man and the animals may be built out of the same materials and built in similar ways, but the ONLY similarity they truly have is in the MIND OF GOD, the DESIGNER!

[The Barbarian]

I'm just confirming what the Bible says.    YE adds material to the text.

I've repeatedly shown you that the Bible takes no position on evolution, to support or deny it.   You might as well expect the Bible to have a position on protons.

35 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

Hmmm... "repeatedly." Seems like I could say the same thing. OE adds TIME to the text!

It does.   YE adds their assumptions, just as OE adds theirs.    Fact is, the Bible takes no position on the age of the Earth or how long creation takes.  The only reason OE wins out, is that God left evidence for us to discover.  

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

 

[Retrobyter]

On 11/6/2023 at 9:55 AM, The Barbarian said:

I'm just confirming what the Bible says.    YE adds material to the text.

I've repeatedly shown you that the Bible takes no position on evolution, to support or deny it.   You might as well expect the Bible to have a position on protons.

It does.   YE adds their assumptions, just as OE adds theirs.    Fact is, the Bible takes no position on the age of the Earth or how long creation takes.  The only reason OE wins out, is that God left evidence for us to discover.  

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.

https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

Shalom, The Barbarian.

No, you're not. You're confirming what you WANT the Bible to say. YE Creationism doesn't "add material to the text"; we simply follow the text!

As far as "the Bible takes no position on evolution, to support or deny it," I have to say that's not quite true! You're assuming MILLIONS of years of death and destruction. But, that is NOT what the Bible says! God looked at His Creation after the creation of man, and pronounced it "VERY GOOD!" With death, decay, and "survival of the fittest?" I don't think so!

Look, we have the SAME EVIDENCE! It's just a matter of the interpretation of that evidence.

You interpret all the death and destruction as happening over millions of years gradually (uniformitarianism). We look at the SAME EVIDENCE and see the Global Flood, a flood like no other in the history of mankind (catastrophism)! You don't think so because you've only been exposed to the interpretation of evolutionism, with "common ancestry" and "survival of the fittest." I don't believe you've even taken a serious look at the evidence in the light of a GLOBAL FLOOD!

We look at the evidence and see a MASSIVE, GLOBAL, HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE Flood! We see the layering of sediments as being put down quickly in the aftermath of the Flood, and all of the death and destruction was caused relatively QUICKLY! THAT'S what is in sync with the evidence!

As an advocate for evolution and evolutionism, of COURSE you're going to say, "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." But, I see exactly the opposite! It SHOULD be "teetering on the verge of collapse!" There's too much evidence that says that the current destruction found in the rock layers was caused QUICKLY, not over "millions and billions of years!"

But, you won't examine the evidence with an open mind; so, all of this rhetoric is POINTLESS.

[teddyv]

 

47 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

We look at the evidence and see a MASSIVE, GLOBAL, HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE Flood! We see the layering of sediments as being put down quickly in the aftermath of the Flood, and all of the death and destruction was caused relatively QUICKLY! THAT'S what is in sync with the evidence!

I have simply not seen the evidence for this in my work in various places around the world, be it the Proterozoic greenstones of West Africa, the sediments of the Rocky Mountains, the island arc sequences of volcanics, sediments and granitoid intrusives of western British Columbia.

47 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

As an advocate for evolution and evolutionism, of COURSE you're going to say, "Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."

That quote is from Dr. Todd Wood, a Creationist biologist, holding a Ph.D. who is attempting to create an alternate model for the earth's biodoversity.

47 minutes ago, Retrobyter said:

 

But, I see exactly the opposite! It SHOULD be "teetering on the verge of collapse!" There's too much evidence that says that the current destruction found in the rock layers was caused QUICKLY, not over "millions and billions of years!"

You are now talking about geology, not biology. 

 

[Retrobyter]

15 hours ago, teddyv said:

I have simply not seen the evidence for this in my work in various places around the world, be it the Proterozoic greenstones of West Africa, the sediments of the Rocky Mountains, the island arc sequences of volcanics, sediments and granitoid intrusives of western British Columbia.

Shalom, teddyv.

That's because you're not looking at the BIGGER picture! ALL of what you mention were laid down QUICKLY during and after the FLood! ALL of it! This is why I'm saying that the FLOOD of Noach's time was bigger than anyone could imagine today! I believe that the ONLY way that Noach, his family and the animals could have survived was that they were trapped in a jet stream that kept them from straying too far north or too far south. They were kept at moderate temperatures that the rest of the earth didn't have! When the "fountains of the great deep" were broken up, there were also massive earthquakes and underwater volcanoes. The whole earth was upheaved and all of the death and fossil remains were created in those few years following the Flood! There was no death at the end of the Creation Week. That's how MASSIVE the Flood was! EVERYTHING uncovered today by paleontologists were buried quickly after the Flood! EVERYTHING!!!

15 hours ago, teddyv said:

That quote is from Dr. Todd Wood, a Creationist biologist, holding a Ph.D. who is attempting to create an alternate model for the earth's biodiversity.

You are now talking about geology, not biology. 

But, it is the FOSSIL REMAINS found within geology that are interpreted as biology, particularly biological "common ancestry." And, yet, no transitional forms have EVER been found to prove common ancestry.

I don't know Todd Wood personally, but I suspect that he's allowed others to convince him of long ages. A doctorate only proves that he's had significant exposure to the fields of study in which he was awarded that doctorate. It does NOT make him an expert in those fields, particularly when he strays from the Scriptures.

And, yes, I cannot talk about biology without talking about geology, particularly paleontology and the evolutionistic twist put upon the discovered remains. 

But, EVERY ONE of the animals - and plants - found buried within the "fossil record" were produced by the Flood. If anything, it shows what animals and plants were alive at the time that the Flood occurred! Where they are buried in the strata shows where they lived (in valleys or mountain sides), their mobility (how far could they hold their breath and swim to higher locations), and their strength (how well could they stroke water in the effort to survive). Yet EVERY ONE of them did NOT survive! They ALL drowned! And, this is proof of what the Bible said,

Genesis 7:21-23 (KJV)

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

No lost tribes of men, no unicorns, no beasts that may have survived by some other fabulous method. ALL died!

[FJK]

A question:  If I paint a picture of one million B.C. does that mean the picture is one million years old?

Think about this, it will lead to understanding.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, teddyv.

That's because you're not looking at the BIGGER picture! ALL of what you mention were laid down QUICKLY during and after the FLood! ALL of it! This is why I'm saying that the FLOOD of Noach's time was bigger than anyone could imagine today! I believe that the ONLY way that Noach, his family and the animals could have survived was that they were trapped in a jet stream that kept them from straying too far north or too far south. They were kept at moderate temperatures that the rest of the earth didn't have! When the "fountains of the great deep" were broken up, there were also massive earthquakes and underwater volcanoes. The whole earth was upheaved and all of the death and fossil remains were created in those few years following the Flood! There was no death at the end of the Creation Week. That's how MASSIVE the Flood was! EVERYTHING uncovered today by paleontologists were buried quickly after the Flood! EVERYTHING!!!

But, it is the FOSSIL REMAINS found within geology that are interpreted as biology, particularly biological "common ancestry." And, yet, no transitional forms have EVER been found to prove common ancestry.

How could you possibly assume that I am not looking at the bigger picture? On what basis can you even make that claim? That I don't agree with the YEC interpretation of Scripture? Anyway...

Let's talk specifics then. The country of Ghana is well-endowed with gold resources. I worked for about 6 months on a project there hosted with the Birimian metasediments. These sediments were primarily multiple sequences of greywacke, sandstone to siltstone, sometimes well-bedded, other times more disturbed. These finer sediments were overlain by conglomerates of the Tarkwaian formation. Overprinting both these units, in the deposit I worked on, was a metamorphic event that produced garnets. The interesting thing was in the upper conglomerates, instead of garnets, it was magnetite. As we would log down the drill core, the magnetite would suddenly transition into the garnets. This is due to a metamorphic reaction creating "skarn". Further into the sediments, sulphides would appear indicating hydrothermal action. Our gold deposit was located in a rich skarn zone (or zones) of large pink garnets, green amphiboles and pyrrhotite (a sulphide), along with quartz veins that were often mineralized with visible gold. As work progressed it was understood that the deposit was structurally hosted within a steep thrust fault.

In these sediments, no fossils are found, either in the fine sediments (which would have been conducive to preservation) or the conglomerates (less so). The finer sediments were deposited likely on a coastal shelf, with the later conglomerates overlain during uplift of the area.  They also show multiple sequences of various fineness of the sediments.

So, I need to have a good idea of how to explain all these issues, for one small gold deposit, within the 1 year Flood event. If you go with "it was created that way" well, that's fine, I guess.

We need disposition of the finer sediments, uplift, deposition of the coarse conglomerates, structural deformation including folding and faulting, metamorphism, hydrothermal processes. We like to know the timing of these events because it can (and has) led to the identification of additional deposits with the same characteristics.

I'm sure the good folk at AiG would quote me "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" but even their own people concede that they cannot deal with the heat problem that process involves.

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

I don't know Todd Wood personally, but I suspect that he's allowed others to convince him of long ages. A doctorate only proves that he's had significant exposure to the fields of study in which he was awarded that doctorate. It does NOT make him an expert in those fields, particularly when he strays from the Scriptures.

Dr. Todd Wood is a creationist who believes fairly the same as you. As far as I am concerned he has credibility to criticize or object evolutionary theory because he actually understands it, and probably far better than me, not being a biologist. 

1 hour ago, Retrobyter said:

And, yes, I cannot talk about biology without talking about geology, particularly paleontology and the evolutionistic twist put upon the discovered remains. 

But, EVERY ONE of the animals - and plants - found buried within the "fossil record" were produced by the Flood. If anything, it shows what animals and plants were alive at the time that the Flood occurred! Where they are buried in the strata shows where they lived (in valleys or mountain sides), their mobility (how far could they hold their breath and swim to higher locations), and their strength (how well could they stroke water in the effort to survive). Yet EVERY ONE of them did NOT survive! They ALL drowned! And, this is proof of what the Bible said,

Genesis 7:21-23 (KJV)

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

No lost tribes of men, no unicorns, no beasts that may have survived by some other fabulous method. ALL died!

You have a lot of work ahead of you to demonstrate this. We do not find jumbles of different species of fossils in the rocks. Certain fossils are expressly limited to certain formations. Around my home are ammonites and bivalves in the Jurassic-aged rocks. There is also a fossiliferous outcrop containing fish, wasps, and metasequoia from an ancient Eocene lake. We do not find intermixing of any of these fossils and they almost literally on top of each other.

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

A question:  If I paint a picture of one million B.C. does that mean the picture is one million years old?

Think about this, it will lead to understanding.

I'll bite, but I need some clarification. Is this an allusion to the idea that God created the world to look ancient, even though it is not?

[FJK]

24 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I'll bite, but I need some clarification. Is this an allusion to the idea that God created the world to look ancient, even though it is not?

Yes, God created the world to be the way He wanted it to be.

Genesis 1:1 tells us He created it all, the heaven and the earth, in the beginning.

There is no past, present and future to God, it is all already there as it is, it was formed in its completeness on the sixth day which was already there from the beginning, is here now, and will be there at the ending, all was created at the same time.

 

Edited November 8, 2023 by FJK

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, FJK said:

Yes, God created the world to be the way He wanted it to be.

Genesis 1:1 tells us He created it all, the heaven and the earth, in the beginning.

There is no past, present and future to God, it is all already there as it is, it was formed in its completeness on the sixth day which was already there from the beginning, is here now, and will be there at the ending, all was created at the same time.

 

This creates problems. Certainly God can make it how he wants. I don't dispute that. I do have a problem with an effectively deceitful God because that is what is being implied by such a view. This is Biblically problematic and I am surprised that it is suggested.

It would also mean that we are, in fact, correct that the earth is old, because God made it (appear) old, and all the physics, chemistry and geology are consistent with that view. So the science is correct - there is no evidence left that tells us it is young. I feel this overcomplicates matters.

Also, such a view also would be challenged by the YEC's out there because they are looking at the world and saying that the evidence suggests the world is only a couple thousand years old. They believe the world attests to this. Your view says they are wrong as well.

The young earth belief is a purely faith-based position. It's fine with me if you hold to it, as I understand the Scriptural basis for it, but I think it is a poor reading and interpretation of the Scriptures in light of the historical context, culture and audience of the time. We should not confuse God's general revelation of the created world with his special revelation to us through his Word. Nor should we build our faith's foundation upon Genesis, but on Christ alone. We can quibble the details on the other stuff.