Ark encounter

[Kurieuo]

I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of. Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Don't worry Nessa, no one does. If they claim otherwise they're lying, but life exists doesn't it, so it must have happened! Improbabilities rather than saying impossibilities makes people feel more comforted who don't want to believe God exists. A 1 in 10⁴⁰ chance, based upon "random" chance, and again we're here aren't we? Evidence life came from non-life.

As long as you include the liars who say they know it was "god".

Audie said "god" so I think she actually meant those ancient Greeks, Vikings and what-have-you who had a deities. The bunch of them liars! It was God of course, not god.

[hughfarey]

Katabole may not have, but what evidence do you have that Vikram Singh is incorrect? You asked for a defensible point and were provided a real datapoint.

I'm not sure it is a real datapoint, and I'm even surer that although it was presented as defensible, you have no idea how to defend it. However, let's see.

A number like 10^40000 is usually achieved very simply. You start with a simple probability, say 1 in 10, and extrapolate it through a number of steps to achieve the final figure. 1 in 10, times 1 in 10, times 1 in 10 gives us a chance of 1 in 1000. Starting with 1 in 10, you need 40000 extrapolations to achieve 1 in 10^40000. But what sort of self-replicating molecule requires 40000 extrapolations? The simplest self-replicating peptide probably consists of about 40 amino acids. If there is a 1 in 10 chance of two of these linking together appropriately at random, then the chances of the whole assemblage is 1 in 10^40. Even if there is only a 1 in 1000 chance of a random linkage, and the self-replicating molecule was 1000 units long, that's still only a probability of 1 in 10^3000. Vikram Singh's number is looking increasingly preposterous. Still, you claimed it was defensible. Any chance you might like to defend it? I thought not.

Then, of course, in order to achieve an unlikely possibility, all you need are sufficient opportunities. The chances of winning the lottery are very slight, but people do win it, week after week, because the number of people taking part is so huge. Given a billion planets, a billion cubic kilometers of water on each, and a billion years or so, the probability of a very improbable event occurring is hugely increased.

Finally, this random assemblage of available components is not at all a sensible scenario in the first place. The theory of the survival of successful entities extends into the abiotic. Once the first highly improbable linkages have occurred, the chances of subsequent successful linkages is increased, making the whole of the extrapolation thing explained above a nonsense.

But here's the kicker: even those are too complex to have came into existence by random chance, even in an ocean of 330 million cubic miles of water!

I don't believe that at all.

Bottom line, perhaps someday we'll come up with a model in which the probabilities are not absurd.

Right.

But we do not as of today have that model.

Wrong. See above.

And what that means is that, so far as the evidence tells us today, right now, there is no chemical pathway to the evolution of the first life.

Wrong again. If the evidence isn't there, it doesn't tell us anything. It certainly does not tell us that there are no chemical pathways to life.

Again, perhaps it will someday be found, but on what basis do we posit that it will be found?

On the basis that successive experiments have narrowed the field closer and closer. I have no doubt whatever that self-replicating chemicals which can be seen as clear precursors of life as we know it will be achieved in the laboratory in the next five years.

At what point does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence.

When every possible place where the evidence might be found has been explored. I walk into my garden and see no butterflies. I look at a bush and there are still no butterflies. At what point can I declare it 'proved' that there are no butterflies in my garden?

We have an absolute absence of evidence of a global flood, and that qualifies as evidence that no such event ever occurred, right?

Yes, because we observe continuity of strata in various places across the whole world. Every place where evidence could exist has been examined and found empty.

And so the creationist can make the claim here.

Not until every possible avenue has been explored and found empty.

Again, I'm not asking you to claim abiogenesis is wrong. I am hoping, though, that you can admit that your very basic question was asked--you requested a single defensible point that evolution (in the completely godless sense) is false (in the sense that God didn't guide it and didn't create anything out of nothing). You've been provided one. Proof? Of course not. But a defensible point? I really hope you can at least admit that . . .

Discussable, yes. Defensible? Well, you haven't defended it, but perhaps Vikram Singh might. I wonder where he is now...

[Katabole]

Well, you haven't defended it, but perhaps Vikram Singh might. I wonder where he is now...

It seems from your statement and one you made previously that you are assuming Singh does not exist?

I do not know if he exists or not. I have no reason to doubt Ravi Zacharias though as he has proven in life to be one of the most capable and intelligent Christian apologists. Maybe you should write Dr. Zacharias and ask him?

I think what bothered you and what I see from your previous posts with other members is that you like being right and the others must be wrong, regardless of their education, and it threatens the very core of your theistic evolution view and other Christian views, when you are challenged by either an apologist like Ravi, who quotes a mathematician showing the odds of life out there in the Universe being extremely rare and you do not like it or by members here who show that your philosophy is unique to you and you alone.

I am a ruin/reconstruction or gap creationist. I do not believe there is life out there in the Universe anywhere, as that conflicts with ruin/reconstruction premise that there was an age before this one and God destroyed that age instead of destroying Lucifer and God's children that rebelled against Him in that age. God then created this present age in which the souls that were with Him in the beginning were placed in anatomical human bodies to decide during their short lives whether they would worship Christ or worship Lucifer.

Maybe you consider that small-minded or anti-science or just plain stupid. I do not care because I have heard it all before. I find Ruin/Reconstruction creationism to be the most cohesive and comprehensive of all the creation views that keeps in line with Scripture more than any other creation view.

The universe, too, faces death. Why God would create a bunch of sentient beings out there in the Universe, only to eventually snuff out their existence for no apparent reason seems absurd to me on multiple levels, not only from a theological and moral point of view but from a logical point of view. If you want to believe there are alien space races out there somewhere go ahead. I do not.

Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and everything in it is growing farther and farther apart. As it does so, it grows colder and colder and its energy is used up. Eventually all the stars will burn out and all matter will collapse into dead stars and black holes. There will be no light at all; there will be no heat; there will be no life; only the corpses of dead stars and dark galaxies, ever expanding into the endless darkness and the cold recesses of space, until a time comes when even black holes are pulled apart from the expansion of space—a universe in ruins. That is the type of universe we live in. It was doomed to die from the first moment that God created it.

I could go on but I doubt it matters.

[Audie]

Audie: As long as you include the liars who say they know it was "god".

Audie, you need to watch your mouth with the insulting comments, as you just called ALL of the Christians and theists of all stripes here a liar!

Aww, Phil, now, honestly?

First we got a statement of facts not in evidence, just an opinion.

Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Kind of a vague one, which one of your fellow Christians readily showed an exception to the supposed rule.

then Krink..who btw introduced the word "lying".

Don't worry Nessa, no one does. If they claim otherwise they're lying,

And your fellow modulateor Krink was able to recognize my comment as what it was, light hearted banter.

Now, it may be that you are immune to the subtelties of banter versus vicious attack; perhaps too, you are into absolutes like Truth and Lie, and likewise immune to recognition of the shades between night and day.

What Ness said about intelligence may be demonstrably false; it certainly cannot be shown to be true. Krink said that nobody who says they KNOW otherwise is a liar. I can go along with that.
Do do you have a problem with that or only when it is flipped around by-shudder- an atheist?

Audie, are YOU a liar?

Your book says everyone is. Do you have a problem with that?

I could turn your snide comment around and say,

It was not snide. Are you a liar? Or offering an opinion? Are there shades of grey possible?
Is a complete misreading, born of prejudice on you part possible?

people whom assert they KNOW that no God was necessary or exists is a liar

Of course. Same as those who say they know there is. Do you have a problem with that?

- except while you constantly make sarcastic statements about Belief in God and Scripture, you have acknowledged that 1) you DON'T have any knowledge that explains the origins or a source of all that exists, and 2) you have previously conceded (in a grudging way, perhaps) that, while it MIGHT be possible that some type of god might exist, that you are nonetheless fairly certain He could not be the God of the Bible. So, as you can't and haven't said you KNOW for CERTAIN there is no God, I guess I can't call YOU a liar - as rude as that would be. Show some respect! Nothing wrong with attacking a belief others have that you think has no merit. But it's quite another to throw out unnecessary insults to those holding whatever beliefs you happen to disagree with. STOP DOING IT!!!

"Constantly" ? Absolute "truth"? Half true? True .3% of the time?

Actually it is zero. Tsk.

As for the rest of what you wrote here, I only glanced at it. There is a tinge of the voyeuristic in peering into such an emotive display.

I called nobody a liar. Krink said someone would be a liar if; you said I would be a liar if; I asked if turn about is fair play. To you, most clearly not.

Whatever your problem may be, Phil, its not with me.


Yell and threaten as it suits you, but you are in the wrong.

[Audie]

I still don't understand though how you get life from non life. The absolute complexities of a single cell which darwin himself seem to not be aware of. Intelligence can not come from non intelligence..

Don't worry Nessa, no one does. If they claim otherwise they're lying, but life exists doesn't it, so it must have happened! Improbabilities rather than saying impossibilities makes people feel more comforted who don't want to believe God exists. A 1 in 10⁴⁰ chance, based upon "random" chance, and again we're here aren't we? Evidence life came from non-life.

As long as you include the liars who say they know it was "god".

Audie said "god" so I think she actually meant those ancient Greeks, Vikings and what-have-you who had a deities. The bunch of them liars! It was God of course, not god.

Rats, foiled again.

[Audie]

And you have gone through the biochemistry to know that the damn lies and statistics are correct?

It certainly is a fact that all manner of quite complex organic molecules
self assemble under a wide variety of conditions.

Given 330 million cubic miles of water, and the fantasticatillion number of
atoms, the speed with which they interact, and some few millions of years to work with, any reaction that is possible is going to happen.

Assembling an entire DNA molecule for, say, a hop toad, from a soup of atoms
is of course not going to happen. It is a false argument, nobody has ever proposed such a thing.

Is your main idea here that evoltuion is impossible, or that life had to be started by a god, and then could evolve from there?

Katabole may not have, but what evidence do you have that Vikram Singh is incorrect? You asked for a defensible point and were provided a real datapoint. You then waved away the evidence with a vague reference to 330 million cubic miles of water as if that somehow resolved the math problem. Not good enough, Audie. Moreover, if it were as easy as you were suggesting, we would have a possible chemical pathway to the origins of life, and I'm sure you can acknowledge that we don't have that. Now, you've rightly always insisted on honesty and that science doesn't prove, that evidence is not proof, and so on. Surely you can admit that this is a single data point of evidence in favor of creationism.

I think it is a possible datrm point. I know not the biochemistry for a deep comment; same with you. I did one time ask two different organic chemists at the U what they thought of the possibility of abio. One said he thought it possible, tho he didnt have much to say about how;
the other, coincidentally or otherwise a christian, said it is so close to impossible as to be not worth considering.

And we can press it further. The follow up article you posted really is little more than a straw man. It is certainly true that no one claims that fully formed DNA just popped into existence, but that's hardly the argument that any creationist actually makes.

Welllllll... I see some awful silly arguments. Like that ToE claims the first life was a single cell organism, and they then springboard from that so say how complex a cell is, and string together a lot of hyperbolic adjectives about wild blind random chaotic mindless chance, 747 junkyard, and all that.

Again, the problem is with a chemical pathway to DNA. Suppose we start with RNA. Fine, what's the pathway to RNA. The basic problem here is that you need RNA to build proteins but that you need proteins to build RNA, and further, even if you had the two together, you need them in a highly complex organism called a cell in order to even get things going. So even our simple RNA world is hardly so simple. Moreover, even such protein would need to fold, and as such, most research on this subject (at least, what I'm aware of in my non-specialization) is related to the domains of the protein--that is, those independently folding units that form the basis of modern proteins.

I know tht nobody knows how it could have happened. i also know that I nor you is up on the latest research.

One field I did talk to a Prof about recently was "self replicating molecules", ones that will endlessly assemble other molecules. Not quite on topic, but it has some intriguing aspects.
Like, is that a "code" that perforce must have been intelligently designed?

But here's the kicker: even those are too complex to have came into existence by random chance, even in an ocean of 330 million cubic miles of water!

The end product is. Dont get too carried away with that word "random' tho. The way that a flow of energy will produce order from the most chaotic system is a major aspect of how reality works. Everything has randomness at some levels. Which gasoline molecules go into what cylinder is random, but somehow it all works anyway.

Bottom line, perhaps someday we'll come up with a model in which the probabilities are not absurd. But we do not as of today have that model. And what that means is that, so far as the evidence tells us today, right now, there is no chemical pathway to the evolution of the first life. Again, perhaps it will someday be found, but on what basis do we posit that it will be found? At what point does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence. We have an absolute absence of evidence of a global flood, and that qualifies as evidence that no such event ever occurred, right? And so the creationist can make the claim here.

Oh oh oh no ya dont! no KNOWN pathway.

The 'absence of evidence" thing seems to me to apply to any and all gods, daemons, sprites and etc.
Not sure what you are saying about absolute evidence of a global flood, some sort of mistype there? For lo, while science does not do "absolutes" the actual evidence against is so extensive that, if you wish to talk odds, the chance that ALL of that evidence is corrupt and wrong is, well, not worth considering.

Again, I'm not asking you to claim abiogenesis is wrong. I am hoping, though, that you can admit that your very basic question was asked--you requested a single defensible point that evolution (in the completely godless sense) is false (in the sense that God didn't guide it and didn't create anything out of nothing). You've been provided one. Proof? Of course not. But a defensible point? I really hope you can at least admit that .

That one can be argued, but i feel it is like two first grade kids trying to fight in their subzero snow suits. Nobody here could do better than haul out dueling websites.

Of course a defensible fact could be presented, potentially, against ToE or abio.

However, when I ask for one, typically about evolution, the best that is ever offered is still something kind of, you know, out on some edge where it is beyond either confirmation of being falsified. Which is where that stats thing is. Most of the time is is some sort of complete nonsense / strawman etc, or, Abe's fav. which is to play SETI.

I was asking evoltuion anyway, not abio. So it was kinda irrelevant.



. .

[hughfarey]

It seems from your statement and one you made previously that you are assuming Singh does not exist?

I'm not sure. I think his name might be Singhi. However, what I don't think exists is not the man, but his calculation. You claimed his calculation of 10^40000 was 'defensible', but the only defence offered so far is the authority of a statisitican, not a biologist.

I do not know if he exists or not. I have no reason to doubt Ravi Zacharias though as he has proven in life to be one of the most capable and intelligent Christian apologists. Maybe you should write Dr. Zacharias and ask him?

Maybe. But the defence of an argument by authority is not strengthened by calling in another authority. Zacharias quotes Singhi or Singh without clarification.

I think what bothered you and what I see from your previous posts with other members is that you like being right and the others must be wrong, regardless of their education, and it threatens the very core of your theistic evolution view and other Christian views, when you are challenged by either an apologist like Ravi, who quotes a mathematician showing the odds of life out there in the Universe being extremely rare and you do not like it or by members here who show that your philosophy is unique to you and you alone.

Rather a desperate sentence, if I may say so. I do like being right, don't you? But if anybody wants to challenge my ideas (which are of course entirely conventional among scientists and Christians alike and certainly not unique to me - what an ignorant claim!) they only have to explain where I have gone wrong. Why not have a go?

I am a ruin/reconstruction or gap creationist. I do not believe there is life out there in the Universe anywhere, as that conflicts with ruin/reconstruction premise that there was an age before this one and God destroyed that age instead of destroying Lucifer and God's children that rebelled against Him in that age. God then created this present age in which the souls that were with Him in the beginning were placed in anatomical human bodies to decide during their short lives whether they would worship Christ or worship Lucifer.

And good for you. You may believe whatever you like. What you may not do, unchallenged, is to claim that there is good evidence for your view without actually giving any. An unsubstantiated probability, which I have gone to some lengths to investigate, is not good evidence.

Maybe you consider that small-minded or anti-science or just plain stupid. I do not care because I have heard it all before. I find Ruin/Reconstruction creationism to be the most cohesive and comprehensive of all the creation views that keeps in line with Scripture more than any other creation view.

And that's fine too. No need to be defensive. I don't challenge anyone's beliefs. What I challenge is their evidence. If you don't present any evidence, then there is nothing to challenge. But if you do, you must expect it to be challenged if others don't agree with it.

The universe, too, faces death. Why God would create a bunch of sentient beings out there in the Universe, only to eventually snuff out their existence for no apparent reason seems absurd to me on multiple levels, not only from a theological and moral point of view but from a logical point of view. If you want to believe there are alien space races out there somewhere go ahead. I do not.

Me neither. I agree with you, as I have consistently explained. Alien space races? Not me.

Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding, and everything in it is growing farther and farther apart. As it does so, it grows colder and colder and its energy is used up. Eventually all the stars will burn out and all matter will collapse into dead stars and black holes. There will be no light at all; there will be no heat; there will be no life; only the corpses of dead stars and dark galaxies, ever expanding into the endless darkness and the cold recesses of space, until a time comes when even black holes are pulled apart from the expansion of space—a universe in ruins. That is the type of universe we live in. It was doomed to die from the first moment that God created it.

Quite possibly. I wouldn't argue against that.

[Nicki]

The things said to be as an abominations were simply to show and re-enforce the understanding that these were things ceremonially unclean - that is, in practice there were good things and bad things, and the good/acceptable things were set apart from the "bad" things.

Eh? Now, come on, that's not what the Law specifically states. What could be clearer than the specific instruction "Of their flesh you shall not eat"? It's as clear as "Thou shalt not kill", or "Thou shalt not commit adultery." But now you say that these clear, firm instructions are nothing more than ceremonial? Subtle distinctions between good things and bad things that only apply on ritualistic occasions? It seems that your liberal interpretation of God's word is even more wildly speculative than mine!

Sorry to backtrack - it takes me a while to catch up on lively discussions sometimes: My understanding is that those culturally-related laws like the dietary ones were not just for ritualistic occasions; the ancient Israelites could never eat those unclean foods, reinforcing the separation between them and the pagan nations. In the New Testament God declared the foods to be clean; there was no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile and God would welcome anyone from any nation to be one of his people.

[hughfarey]

So what did Jesus mean by, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"?

[Audie]

So what did Jesus mean by, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"?

Maybe you should ask a dispensationalist. They know about that.

[abelcainsbrother]

[quote="abelcainsbrother"

You've got your evolution blinders on.Take them off so you can see more clearly.Because if I had them on I wouldn't be able to see the fossils that shows the much different life that lived in the former world The only way you can prove me wrong is to show how they prove they were evolving and you cannot do it.I just removed fossils from you,you cannot use them for evidence for evolution now. They had nothing to do with Noah's flood too.

You still need to come to grips with the fact that polar ice proves there was no flood. Thus not gap.

I think overall it is kind of cool that you want to try to figure things out, and
do understand the idea of "deep time". Also, that you see as is so plainly the case, that life in the past and life today are not the same. You went off track in saying that it was "totally different", but perhaps that was just a way of speaking.

Regarding the fossil record, I am really kind of astonished that you have not
taken the little time needed to look up what the fossil record actually shows about life in the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Caroniferous etc.

Try it!

Like this..Cambrian https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/73 ... 8b7d93.jpg

Devonian
https://www2.estrellamountain.edu/facul ... dev04b.gif

on land..http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/im ... 5_devo.jpg

Carboniferous forest// http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_map3r ... 1_1280.jpg

And so on. Quite-though not totally- different from eachother and from today.

You see clearly the differences from one era to another. Not just two "worlds-
"Previous world" and "present". There is far more to it than that. As even a cursory examination of life forms from different eras will show. Many "previous worlds". It is a very complex picture with lots of overlap, not consistent with any simple explanations.

Then too, there is the persistence of many life forms through the ages, up to the present. Some with very little evident change, others with the most obvious series of changes over perhaps tens of millions of years, then going extinct, or persisting to this day.

There is so much more to the story than you've so far looked into, and it is so much more interesting than any simplified version!

You are off to a good start, seeing that no 6000 yr history of earth could possibly account for the data.

I kind of hope you will just spend some more time in study, and hold back on
your conclusions until you have more of the picture.

We all have some times to give up cherished notions

One of the greatest breakthroughs is what one of my professors told me,
and it is to find the point where you are delighted, excited to find out you were wrong about something.

If someone could prove that ToE is wrong, it would be the most exciting thing
I ever heard or am likely to hear!

How can you say that polar ice proves there was no flood? We have dust in the ice sheets that shows a world wide drought that just so happens to coralate to the time of Noah's flood within the margin of error about 4300 years ago. Also dealing how old the polar ice is,how would you detect a flood which was a one year event? It would be like searching for a needle in a hay stack.Very difficult to do.But I'm not saying it can be proven,I mean,what can be proven as far as the past? But my evidence for a global flood is world wide dust that science has detected.They are not looking at it from a flood view point though,but I am. I see science has detected dust in the polar ice,in the sea,etc that shows a world wide drought that dates to the time of Noah's flood.Now whether or not you think it had something to do with a flood ,I doubt but the bottom line is there was a drought that happened at the time of Noah's flood,so something happened and I believe it has to do with Noah's flood.

But yes,I do like to figure things out.And yes I do see that the earth is old and yes I see that life in the past and life today are not the same.You seem to think though that it was not totally different and I'm not sure that we agree on this point because I do see totally different kind of life and not just with animals but also plant life also.I'm not sure this is much of a sticking point though so I can agree it was not the same.I can go with that.

I have looked up the fossils in the different layers of strata but I never memorized their names except for the Cambrian,but I've heard about the Cambrian explosion,so it is easy to remember.But I have taken the time to look at many different kind of fossils and I am aware that there are gaps in the fossil record.However IMO from the research I've done these gaps hurt evolution more than it would my theory.This is why I think you can see many different worlds but this hurts evolution more than it would the Gap Theory because of time,however I realize evolutionists,just forged ahead with punctuated equilibrium to speed things up when they realized this problem. Also my theory might be simple to you,but I think evolutionists complicate everything by imaging life evolves,especially when looking at fossils.In order to look at a fossil and claim it shows somehow this life was evolving just complicates what the fossil really and simply tells us.

Yes I will continue to spend more time in study as I know my weaknesses and strengths,still what I do know I know well but I'm not technical.I tend to keep thinks simple because it is easier for people to understand.To some it makes it seem like you don't know as much as you do,but it can be deceiving.A lot of times people just impress with all of these big words,but I prefer to keep it simple.

And I am willing to change if I realize somewhere I was wrong.However most people IMO have a hard time changing their mind,especially if its something they've invested a lot of time in.Kind of like a person who gets involved with a cult and they spend years dedicating their life to it,only to one day wake up and realize it is bad and they need to give it up and they change their mind about it and find a way out of it. Thanks for the chat and as far as I could tell a nicer tone than usual.

I think for you to convince me to accept evolution,like you.I would need you to give evidence and reasons you are convinced it is true according to science.I'm not sure this is the thread to discuss it.I would like to know what evidence convinces you it is right though because although it seems like a mountain of evidence as far as I can tell it lacks too much in very important ways,where it matters.

From my research I believe evolution creates a very big credibility problem and I expect better from science.

Every layer of polar ice contains dust, pollen, acid, volcanic ash etc. All of them.

I dont know where you get this "world wide dust'" thing. There is, though, no known or identifiable layer that is found world wide and can be connected to a flood. The geologists would have noticed it if were there, esp considering how hard some people have looked for it.


IF there were a world wide flood such as some imagine, topping the mountains, then
it would, yes, float the ice away. It would then break up, melt away. The ice is still there.

Of course, there are so many versions of what the "flood" may have been, as to when where how big etc.

What sort of flood are you imagining?

I realize you outright reject a flood.But I've explained that science has detected a world wide drought that produced dust in the polar ice,in the seas,etc and it dates to Noah's flood.You discount it,because you already have your mind made up a flood did not happen.I'!m not saying it is proof,only that it is evidence that something happened that effected the world at that time,and world wide too.

But I'm not having a one sided conversation where I give you evidence but you reject it without proving how fossils proves and shows that life was evolving.until you can? You cannot use the fossils for evidence for evolution and a former,different lost world fits the fossil evidence better than the ToE,so you prove and show how the fossils prove or show that the life was evolving.You provide evidence for what you believe because I already have.

[hughfarey]

A Creationist discussion of Noachian geology can be found at http://www.kjvbible.org. Any particular page is an ingenious, but wholly misconceived attempt to collect various disparate scientific papers into a justification of one form of Young Age Creationism. It is typified by extreme selection of convenient data and extreme neglect of inconvenient data. It is also sufficiently well researched for me to think that it is not only misconceived, but also dishonest, in that I believe the compiler knows very well that his conclusions are not justified by the papers he uses in evidence. Abelcainsbrother recognises that even kjv has difficulty in concocting evidence for a world-wide flood, and rather desperately hopes that assorted papers about local climate variations over a period of about a thousand years can be merged into an argument for a post-deluvian drought. Not only does the evidence not sustain the conclusion, the conclusion does not justify the flood anyway.

The strongest evidence for evolution as far as a biblical literalist is concerned can be found on Ark Encounter's own website, with the statement that Noah took about 1500 "kinds" of animals into the Ark. By whatever measns this statement is reconciled to the current number of millions of different species, and even if it is claimed that all these millions of species are merely "variations" on the original 1500 kinds, that's evolution.

[RickD]

hugh wrote:
The strongest evidence for evolution as far as a biblical literalist is concerned can be found on Ark Encounter's own website, with the statement that Noah took about 1500 "kinds" of animals into the Ark. By whatever measns this statement is reconciled to the current number of millions of different species, and even if it is claimed that all these millions of species are merely "variations" on the original 1500 kinds, that's evolution.

Absolutely! YECs believe in evolution at a rate that evolutionists don't even believe.

[Audie]

hugh wrote:
The strongest evidence for evolution as far as a biblical literalist is concerned can be found on Ark Encounter's own website, with the statement that Noah took about 1500 "kinds" of animals into the Ark. By whatever measns this statement is reconciled to the current number of millions of different species, and even if it is claimed that all these millions of species are merely "variations" on the original 1500 kinds, that's evolution.

Absolutely! YECs believe in evolution at a rate that evolutionists don't even believe.

Its not a case of "even" as if understanding ToE is somehow an outlandish thing.

[crochet1949]

Some of that depends on How a person uses the term 'evolution'. Evolution = development Of. There have Always been 'birds' - various shapes, sizes. There is the ostrich and the hummingbird and roadrunner. They are all 'birds' -- none of them will mate and they didn't develop from one to the other. And, more important, they won't develop / evolve into something Else / given Time.
HOW the animals that were on the Ark became what we have Now? Haven't a clue. We Do have various animals to enjoy as pets, to eat and simply enjoy in nature / attempt to keep from getting eaten By /in nature.
Why is it okay to shoot rabbits/ deer / chickens, etc. to eat and not other people.