Evidence for God from Science

Himantolophus,

You want to have us believe in evolution. Then answer this question, why don't we see speciation in the fossil record. A T-rex is the same at the start of the era as the end of the era? A time span of 100 million years or more.

If evolution is happening but is too slow to see then when do we see it. On the world at any moment are trillions of host. Over the span of one lifetime there are at least 100 trillion host. Over recorded time maybe 8000 trillion host.

So we can't see evidence in the fossil record(long ages), and we can't see it now because it is just too slow(slow ages) ( so slow it is not happening). For me it requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Bible.

This thing we never see.
Can it be?
A myth, a legend, a fiction.

Himantolophus wrote:This looks like a case of "picking and choosing" what you "allow" and what you don't "allow". You allow natural selection, which is one of the major driving forces of evolution, and speciation, which are the results of evolution, and at the same time say that evolution itself doesn't exist. The defintition I gave above for evolution is the textbook definition given for evolution. Your definition changes evolution into a theory of "additive mutations" and "biogenesis". This just happens to be the two problems creationists have with evolution.

Erm picking and chosing. Natural selection is a mechanism that is one part of the supposed GTE process. It alone does nothing! Natural selection has been proven. We see it in resistance in bacteria, we see it in sickle cell anaemia and the frequency of that allele in certain conditions. This poses no problem to Creationism or the Bible. Natural selection is a fact of nature. As a result of natural selection possibly, in certain situations speciation can occur for example the relocated Guppies in Trinidad where speciation took 4 years, there are other examples. Creationists expect to see that as rapid speciation should have happened after the flood, it doesn't fit in with the evolutionist framework though. But these changes don't account for the process of GTE. Evolution propagandists often equivocation 'evolution', that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this 'evolution', then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.
The whole hypothesis of evolution is that all animals did originate from a single life form that did originate from inorganic matter, changing of gene frequencies through natural selection doesn't even worry creationist and is just a description of what the result of natural selection is lol.

Himantolophus wrote:If you have no problems with mutations, speciation, and natural selection, you are almost ready to believe in evolution. Yet, you know that no one is alive long enough to actually witness an actual species forming naturally. Species that are only subspecifically distinct (and so almost alike) often have been diverging for thousands of years. If you go to species in the same genus, you go to millions. For families, you have even longer periods of time. I don't see how you need significant additions to the genome to create new species, you can re-arrange genomes, mutate genomes, and delete from genomes and get significant changes. However, I don't see an addition like adding a few new base pairs as impossible by mutation. Over time these minor additions can add up.

Speciation isn't evolution, natural selection isn't evolution, mutations don't help the GTE since there hasn't been any that increase information content. Erm rapid speciation does happen just not one kind turning into another. I don't have a problem with the appearance of new species e.g. a new cat species but to say that a cat could change into anything other than a cat I do have a problem with.
Re-arranging the genome or mutating the genome doesn't add information therefore new features couldn't be produced. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. Also by just adding bases there is no functional information added, the cell can't use that to make new structures.

Himantolophus wrote:Enough with that stuff. I want to hear from the Global Flood people how these kinds "evolved" into the species we see today in the timespan YEC's have to deal with. I also want to hear how the invertebrates, plants, and fishes survived and how this translates into the distribution patterns we see today. I want to hear how God miraculously prevented inbreeding in the creatures that survived the Flood (including Man). I'm sick of people trying to disprove "evolution" when the theories they believe are full of holes and based on flawed interpretations of the evidence and the Bible.

These kinds went about rapid speciation.
Why would God have to prevent inbreeding it's only harmful now because there is such a build up of faulty alleles and disintegration of the genome and it's unnecessary cos there are so many potential humans to have a relation with.. God didn't say that you couldn't make a family with a close relative until Moses' time.
I'm sick of people who put mans ideas and theories before the word of God. Also I don't know what more the author of Gen 6-7-8 could have said to emphasise that it was a global flood. It just doesn't make sense to me for God to move all the animals into the flooding area to put them on a boat . Also quote like Gen 7: 17-24 miff me in that I couldn't see how you could possibly get from that that it was local. How do you actually explain that, I couldn't even try to explain it myself? lol

WWJnotdo wrote:Erm picking and chosing. Natural selection is a mechanism that is one part of the supposed GTE process. It alone does nothing! Natural selection has been proven. We see it in resistance in bacteria, we see it in sickle cell anaemia and the frequency of that allele in certain conditions. This poses no problem to Creationism or the Bible. Natural selection is a fact of nature. As a result of natural selection possibly, in certain situations speciation can occur for example the relocated Guppies in Trinidad where speciation took 4 years, there are other examples. Creationists expect to see that as rapid speciation should have happened after the flood, it doesn't fit in with the evolutionist framework though.

I like a lot of what you say, but I do have to disagree with the last sentence.

First, you must specify as to the taxonomic level we are considering for Noah's "kinds". Global flood propo0nenets maintain that kinds were brought on to the ark. Were these orders? such as one kind of carnivore? Were they families?, such as the dog family? What representative was chosen? Were there different "kinds" back then? A genus? . Would they be considerer "ancestors?"

Secondly, I find this last statement about the speed of speciation to be rather humorous. Why would the rate of speciation be any higher? AS you pointed out, natural selection alone does not lead to evolutionary changes, but we also need mutations and other genome shifting events. So you must state WHY the rate of speciation would be any higher. Did the new environment lead to new genetic changes? However you say it, natural selection alone would not, by itself, lead to the kind of drastic phenotypic differences in, say, a panda and a grizzly bear, without mutations. And then to imply that natural evolution, which demands a far slower rate of speciation, cannot use natural selection, seems illogical.

Why the difference that allows us to claim that natural selection can be responsible for large speciation events and yet allows us to say that evolution cannot occur?

Keep in mind that I don't mind the idea that speciation can occur. Like I said, I agree with much of what you say. I just think it doesn't make sense to allow for a process to occur on a much faster scale that even what the evolutions say (!)

zoegirl wrote:Secondly, I find this last statement about the speed of speciation to be rather humorous. Why would the rate of speciation be any higher? AS you pointed out, natural selection alone does not lead to evolutionary changes, but we also need mutations and other genome shifting events. So you must state WHY the rate of speciation would be any higher. Did the new environment lead to new genetic changes? However you say it, natural selection alone would not, by itself, lead to the kind of drastic phenotypic differences in, say, a panda and a grizzly bear, without mutations. And then to imply that natural evolution, which demands a far slower rate of speciation, cannot use natural selection, seems illogical.

Why the difference that allows us to claim that natural selection can be responsible for large speciation events and yet allows us to say that evolution cannot occur?

Keep in mind that I don't mind the idea that speciation can occur. Like I said, I agree with much of what you say. I just think it doesn't make sense to allow for a process to occur on a much faster scale that even what the evolutions say (!)

I'm not saying that because of the flood speciation was higher. It just that evolutionists say that to get the amount of species we have now it would have to take thousands of years if not milllions but there are countless examples of speciation that take hardly anytime. This something evolutionist don't expect to see. Rapid speciation does occur. After your thing about panda frizzly bear I can't really understand what you staying, soz lol, but in reference to your last sentence why would it not make sense for speciation to occur faster. If it has been observed in nature then it happens you can't escape that. But Speciation and Molecules to man exvolution are different. GTE requires changes that have never been observed.

So, other than the beginning of life, do you believe that evolution can account for the speciation of the animals and plants? It would seem you do, because such a large speciation event such as the one after the flood, as you say happened, WOULD have required both mutations and natural selection, ie, evoltuionary events.

My point about the panda and grizzly bear was that you WOULD need mutations to drive such wide speciation events. Finches and fish are one thing, but to see such differences between these animals you would see genetic changes.

zoegirl wrote:So, other than the beginning of life, do you believe that evolution can account for the speciation of the animals and plants? It would seem you do, because such a large speciation event such as the one after the flood, as you say happened, WOULD have required both mutations and natural selection, ie, evoltuionary events.

My point about the panda and grizzly bear was that you WOULD need mutations to drive such wide speciation events. Finches and fish are one thing, but to see such differences between these animals you would see genetic changes.

What are you defining evolution by. I'm defining it as the evolutionist Kerkut did 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.' Now to ask me the question does evolution account for the speciation of the animals and plants it just doesn't make sense since speciation is speciation involving natural selection and mutations. 'Evolution' is natural selection and mutations resulting in the ability overtime for one kind to turn into another, that is where creationist have the problem cos mutations and natural selection only produce speciation at best not the ability for the creature to turn into a different kind. A better question to ask would be do you think that natural selection and mutations account for the speciation I'd say yes but that isn't Evolution, in a molecules to man sense and doesn't provide evidence for the General Theory of Evolution defined by Kerkut (and the theory creationist have a problem with).

I have nothing against mutations they help speciation. But it's wen evolutionist say that these mutations could overtime get a single celled organism to turn into a multicelled human (general theory of evolution) that i have problem with since that requires information increaing mutation of which has never been observed.

I have nothing against mutations they help speciation. But it's wen evolutionist say that these mutations could overtime get a single celled organism to turn into a multicelled human (general theory of evolution) that i have problem with since that requires information increaing mutation of which has never been observed.

I think you and frankbaginski want to see this concession from me. Yes, there is a certain amount of faith required to follow macroevolution. But, we really have no choice since no one can go back and prove any of this.

However, I still say that the evidence clearly points away from a young earth creationist explanation. Forget the fact that the Genesis account of creation is not in the correct order of appearance for things, but also that the Flood Story is terribly flawed.

You want to have us believe in evolution. Then answer this question, why don't we see speciation in the fossil record. A T-rex is the same at the start of the era as the end of the era? A time span of 100 million years or more.

There is stasis all over the place. Sharks have changed little in hundreds of millions of years. Coelacanths are little changed. Species that are well adpated for their environment are not pressured by natural selection to change. However there are numerous species of T-rex like predatory dinosaurs that show a evolutionary progression towards T-rex. T-rex was the most derived of that line of predators. Look at the development of the line of small predatory dinosaurs from Triassic species to the Cretaceous Veliciraptor. These dinosaurs have feathers and modified forearms, which indicates an evolutionary change towards a bird (we are not talking about Archaeopteryx here yet). So, we do see alot of changes in the fossil record... not the movie you want to see, but a slide slow.

If evolution is happening but is too slow to see then when do we see it. On the world at any moment are trillions of host. Over the span of one lifetime there are at least 100 trillion host. Over recorded time maybe 8000 trillion host.

If we take a snapshot of such a slow process, then how can we see it happening? Like WWJnotD says, there is ongoing speciation on the planet as we speak. This manifests itself in races, forms, subspecies, and full species in increasing oder of divergence.

So we can't see evidence in the fossil record(long ages), and we can't see it now because it is just too slow(slow ages) ( so slow it is not happening). For me it requires more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Bible.

I agree in the faith thing but we see progression and increasing complexity in the fossil record. Most of the species (including the sharks and coelacanths) are different from their ancestral species. So I agree that we don't see gradual step-by-step changes, but we do see evidence of changes.

Creationists expect to see that as rapid speciation should have happened after the flood, it doesn't fit in with the evolutionist framework though.

what we would have seen in the Flood doesn't fit the evidence at all.

The whole hypothesis of evolution is that all animals did originate from a single life form that did originate from inorganic matter, changing of gene frequencies through natural selection doesn't even worry creationist and is just a description of what the result of natural selection is lol.

That's great if creationists like these things but I'm saying the same factors can lead to evolution as well. Speciation is the "evolution of new species". New species do not just appear on the Earth like that. The mechanism you explain to go from species to species is the same as the mechanism to go from one kind to the other.

Speciation isn't evolution, natural selection isn't evolution, mutations don't help the GTE since there hasn't been any that increase information content. Erm rapid speciation does happen just not one kind turning into another. I don't have a problem with the appearance of new species e.g. a new cat species but to say that a cat could change into anything other than a cat I do have a problem with.

you focus on the extreme dog to cat example. It is not difficult to go from one kind to another. Most "kinds" are fairly closely related to each other. For example, snappers, grunts, seabasses and porgies are all different families of fishes yet they all share similar overall morphology (spiny dorsal attached to soft dorsal, pelivc fin with 1 spine, 5 rays, anal fin with 3 spines deep-bodied). It would not be a major evolutionary change to go from one to the other. Same with monkeys. There are transitional forms all the way from spider monkeys to apes, not just small monkey and big monkey and ape. The same goes with mollusks. The "kinds" of marginella snails, olives, and volutes are closely related yet they are classified as different kinds. The hyena looks like a dog but is more closely related to the cats. Are these just coincidences or can you argue that these "kinds" are not realy "kinds"? These "kinds" are open to humanities opinions. Can you define a kind?

Re-arranging the genome or mutating the genome doesn't add information therefore new features couldn't be produced. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. Also by just adding bases there is no functional information added, the cell can't use that to make new structures.

can you prove this? I don't think anyone on Earth can prove that this DIDN'T happen. Genes don't preserve in fossils.

These kinds went about rapid speciation.
Why would God have to prevent inbreeding it's only harmful now because there is such a build up of faulty alleles and disintegration of the genome and it's unnecessary cos there are so many potential humans to have a relation with.. God didn't say that you couldn't make a family with a close relative until Moses' time.
I'm sick of people who put mans ideas and theories before the word of God. Also I don't know what more the author of Gen 6-7-8 could have said to emphasise that it was a global flood. It just doesn't make sense to me for God to move all the animals into the flooding area to put them on a boat . Also quote like Gen 7: 17-24 miff me in that I couldn't see how you could possibly get from that that it was local. How do you actually explain that, I couldn't even try to explain it myself? lol

you didn't really answer anything I asked. How is it that things speciated explosively after this so-called global flood? What selective forces were at work. Everything would have left the Ark in the same location so they'd be exposed to the same selective forces. Species not native to the Ararat region would die quickly due to the adverse environmental conditions. Therefore, we'd have no temperate to Arctic species. They would also prey on each other, further reducing diversity. And if you lost a female of a "kind" to disease/predator/accidental event, you would lose that "kind" and all of it's ancestors because you'd have a male only left. And why was the speciation event so rapid right after the flood and suddenly stopped right when we had recorded history? Seems kind of convenient for YEC's to say. Just like evolutionists, creationists have a lot of stuff they use the "we weren't there" excuse for.
So you are ok with inbreeding with relatives? Biblical conservatives have problems with homosexuality and abortion but they are alright with incest? Seems like they have a double standard. And you are completely altering genetics by speaking of "faulty genes" and "disintegration". The genes would not be faulty, the gene pool would be sickenly small. If you mate one male and one female, you are left with only their gene pool. There is no variability, no diversity. In order for a population to spread and diverisify, you need a healthy, diverse gene pool. There is no evidence that the genes of the animals and people were any different from today so I'd like to see evidence of this disintegration. There are countless examples of the dangers of inbreeding (see the Cheetah) and these animals would be no different.
That the flood was local does NOTHING to de-value God's word. If he killed 2 million as opposed to 100 million would the disaster be minor? If he wiped out a single city and promised Noah never to do it again, would this take away from His Word? I for one can believe in God's Word AND a local flood. Who's to say God's Word wasn't meant as a story???
For the millionth time, God wouldn't tell Noah to move away from the local flood because he doesn't want to warn the populace. He also wanted to test Noah's obedience and faith. By doing exactly what God wanted, Noah proved his faith. He did not really care about what the other people did. I'm sure a bunch of them did flee eventually. The one's that scoffed the warning and mocked Noah were killed and this is what God intended to do, remove the wickedness from the "earth". And the type of flood that caused the local event would not have been escapable.

I'm not saying that because of the flood speciation was higher. It just that evolutionists say that to get the amount of species we have now it would have to take thousands of years if not milllions but there are countless examples of speciation that take hardly anytime. This something evolutionist don't expect to see. Rapid speciation does occur. After your thing about panda frizzly bear I can't really understand what you staying, soz lol, but in reference to your last sentence why would it not make sense for speciation to occur faster. If it has been observed in nature then it happens you can't escape that. But Speciation and Molecules to man exvolution are different. GTE requires changes that have never been observed.

can you name examples and cite sources? Are they really species or just morpho-species? The Gambusia guppy complex in the Caribbean is due to isolation in separate islands and even separate pool and springs. They've been isolated for thousands of years so geologically they are recent but not "quick".

I have nothing against mutations they help speciation. But it's wen evolutionist say that these mutations could overtime get a single celled organism to turn into a multicelled human (general theory of evolution) that i have problem with since that requires information increaing mutation of which has never been observed.

So, if things didn't go according to creation OR evolution as we know them today, is there another way that this could occur? Maybe God created each "kind" over billions of years as they appear in the fossil record and let natural selection or evolution lead to speciation over time? Not that this is what I believe but I'm throwing it out there.

Ignoring our respective definitions of evolution and speciation and how they relate to each other, the evidence points to speciation taking long periods of time. Creationists try and refute evolution by saying we have not observed a new species forming. But then they turn around and say speciation was fast after the Flood. How can you argue against something and then come about face when you need to explain your own theory? How does any sort of speciation, evolution or not, fit into Global Flood theory?

Himantolophus wrote:what we would have seen in the Flood doesn't fit the evidence at all.

Well I kinda think it does, e.g Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level due to ocean waters flooded over the continents, Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas, Rapid or no erosion between strata, Many strata laid down in rapid succession, Sediment transported over long distances.

Himantolophus wrote:That's great if creationists like these things but I'm saying the same factors can lead to evolution as well. Speciation is the "evolution of new species". New species do not just appear on the Earth like that. The mechanism you explain to go from species to species is the same as the mechanism to go from one kind to the other.

The trouble is for you to go from one kind of creature to another requires a mutation that can increase information in the genome. Since we have never witnessed completely new features being produced in nature and we have never observed an information increasing mutation it kinda takes faith to assume it does happen. Not to mention new information being created from nothing is against Information Theory and goes against logic and observation, it's kind of a problem.

Himantolophus wrote:you focus on the extreme dog to cat example. It is not difficult to go from one kind to another. Most "kinds" are fairly closely related to each other. For example, snappers, grunts, seabasses and porgies are all different families of fishes yet they all share similar overall morphology (spiny dorsal attached to soft dorsal, pelivc fin with 1 spine, 5 rays, anal fin with 3 spines deep-bodied). It would not be a major evolutionary change to go from one to the other. Same with monkeys. There are transitional forms all the way from spider monkeys to apes, not just small monkey and big monkey and ape. The same goes with mollusks. The "kinds" of marginella snails, olives, and volutes are closely related yet they are classified as different kinds. The hyena looks like a dog but is more closely related to the cats. Are these just coincidences or can you argue that these "kinds" are not realy "kinds"? These "kinds" are open to humanities opinions. Can you define a kind?

It's not that difficult ROFL, if it was not that difficult we would have been able to come up with a mechanism for it to work but non has been created that actually works. Scientist have no mechanism for it that actually does it. Natural selection+mutations doesn't = one kind to another it never has and never will be. Plus there is no really upward progression in the fossil record of one kind turning into another, there is no half human half ape creature no half dino half bird creature ect. There is even a theory (punctuated equilibrium) to explain why there isn't a creature turningfrom one kind into another!

Your examples for instance the fish may all orginate from a common kind of fish most monkeys might have originated kind of monkey that was created but the problem is fish evolved (according to evolutionists) into land animals they developed legs and lungs (new information Is required for these features) There is no mechanism to explain how fish turned into land animals same with monkey to human. Nature testifies to the fact that these changes don't happen. If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind. On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind. We all know of couples who cannot have children, but this does not mean they are separate kind!

Re-arranging the genome or mutating the genome doesn't add information therefore new features couldn't be produced. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. Also by just adding bases there is no functional information added, the cell can't use that to make new structures.

Himantolophus wrote:can you prove this? I don't think anyone on Earth can prove that this DIDN'T happen. Genes don't preserve in fossils.

We rely on what we understand. We know gravity because we test it every single day of our lives. We infer from that that gravity exists, same with our testing on genes. Scientists have done extensive test on the fruit fly mutating it by exposing it to radiation and never have new feature been produced as a result. Same with bacteria, their generation is evey 20mins approx leave them to get exposed to mutation for say 10 years and that equates to 262,080 generations. In human terms or evolutionary terms that is millions of years worth of time yet you never see bacteria producing new feature like legs or even multiple cells. They always remain bacteria because mutation can't create anything, They make mistakes in information that is there they don't create new information.

Himantolophus wrote:you didn't really answer anything I asked. How is it that things speciated explosively after this so-called global flood? What selective forces were at work. Everything would have left the Ark in the same location so they'd be exposed to the same selective forces. Species not native to the Ararat region would die quickly due to the adverse environmental conditions. Therefore, we'd have no temperate to Arctic species. They would also prey on each other, further reducing diversity. And if you lost a female of a "kind" to disease/predator/accidental event, you would lose that "kind" and all of it's ancestors because you'd have a male only left. And why was the speciation event so rapid right after the flood and suddenly stopped right when we had recorded history? Seems kind of convenient for YEC's to say. Just like evolutionists, creationists have a lot of stuff they use the "we weren't there" excuse for.

The same way they can explosively speciate now? They would be exposed to the same selective forces but animals can move lol the earth was a big place and radically alter from the flood i.e. geology therefore different environments, The ice age after the flood took affect also. You say that there would be no temperate to arctic species, that assume that before the flood there was an arctic. Many kind were probable lost after the flood due to your above reason but not all. We as a species did well after the flood so too most other species.
Who's to say rapid speciation stopped when recorded history began, The earth is a big place, where do you get the idea that speciation stopped wen recorded history began.

Himantolophus wrote:So you are ok with inbreeding with relatives? Biblical conservatives have problems with homosexuality and abortion but they are alright with incest? Seems like they have a double standard.

And you are completely altering genetics by speaking of "faulty genes" and "disintegration". The genes would not be faulty, the gene pool would be sickenly small. If you mate one male and one female, you are left with only their gene pool. There is no variability, no diversity. In order for a population to spread and diverisify, you need a healthy, diverse gene pool. There is no evidence that the genes of the animals and people were any different from today so I'd like to see evidence of this disintegration. There are countless examples of the dangers of inbreeding (see the Cheetah) and these animals would be no different.

What would you rather inbreeding or extinction of the human race. As I said before God makes the rules. Since he never said it was wrong for Noah to inbreed after the flood it wasn't wrong for that moment into time. Also it would have been safer to do then because there would have been less of a chance for mutations to occur as humans hadn't been exposed to mutation causing factors for that long also their genome would have far less mutant alleles than we have now.

What I meant was mutant alleles and yes there is deterioration of the genome why is it so much worse to inbreed now because there are so many potential mutant alleles that can result in genetic diseases and there is a far higher chance of getting them if you breed together . Of course there is no variability straight after the flood but once population levels increase and natural selection works on the alleles of the population variation happens.

Take for example sickle cell anaemia. Multiple genes code for haemoglobin but there is a mutant allele for the gene that produced haemoglobin that is formed incorrectly resulting in blood cells going sickle shaped under low oxygen conditions. God didn't original create this mutant but it happened from a mutation.. About 30 new mutations are carried over per generation. The Genome is riddled with errors http://www.hhmi.org/genetictrail/d100.html

Himantolophus wrote:That the flood was local does NOTHING to de-value God's word. If he killed 2 million as opposed to 100 million would the disaster be minor? If he wiped out a single city and promised Noah never to do it again, would this take away from His Word? I for one can believe in God's Word AND a local flood. Who's to say God's Word wasn't meant as a story???
For the millionth time, God wouldn't tell Noah to move away from the local flood because he doesn't want to warn the populace. He also wanted to test Noah's obedience and faith. By doing exactly what God wanted, Noah proved his faith. He did not really care about what the other people did. I'm sure a bunch of them did flee eventually. The one's that scoffed the warning and mocked Noah were killed and this is what God intended to do, remove the wickedness from the "earth". And the type of flood that caused the local event would not have been escapable.

It won't devalue it but if you can't take genesis literally as it says, why should you take other part of the bible literally. Are you telling me that if by moving away from the area it is going to warn the populance more than if he built a 450foot long boat over the course of many decades without there (from the view of the populates) being any point wats so ever. If the area was so corrupt and violent way would they care that some guy was moving from the area who would notice. But a 450x75x45foot boat????? If Noah was told to move out of the area and build up his own home with his family and he did how would that be any less of a faith test lol.

Himantolophus wrote:Ignoring our respective definitions of evolution and speciation and how they relate to each other, the evidence points to speciation taking long periods of time. Creationists try and refute evolution by saying we have not observed a new species forming. But then they turn around and say speciation was fast after the Flood. How can you argue against something and then come about face when you need to explain your own theory? How does any sort of speciation, evolution or not, fit into Global Flood theory?

Creationist don't say we haven't seen a new species forming we say that you haven't seen one kind of animal turning into another kind an extreme example would be fish to land animal. But ape to man is one kind (ape) to another (human). Speciation fits into GFT as it happened after the flood to get to the species we have now.

If evolution is true then were did the soul come from. If we evolved from molecules or even single cells how did the soul get created. If you believe we evolved from apes Jesus is nothing more than some highly evolved ape. Why would God use evolution a philosophy of death and suffering to create us that defeats the Bible teaching of death being an enemy and Jesus defeating it. If God did use evolution then death is good cos it created us??? But then God lied and Jesus is pointless!

Anyone want to tackle some of the problems proposed by the global flood here? In reading the arguments for the global flood, I haven't seen anything yet in these posts that answers these basic questions proposed...

It had to be a global flood because God said he would not judge the world again like that.As we look at the world today there are local floods.

Daluzinal

Bingo!!

jlay wrote:

Daluzinal wrote:It had to be a global flood because God said he would not judge the world again like that.As we look at the world today there are local floods.

Daluzinal

Bingo!!

It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same.

Byblos wrote:It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same.

Yes, but you also take Ps 104 to be a creation psalm in which God promises that the waters would never again be moved from their boundaries. In that case, God couldn't flood the world anyway, judgment or no. So the whole, "Yeah, I'm never going to kill you all with water again" is kind of a superfluous, if not a bit empty, promise, don't ya think?

Jac3510 wrote:

Byblos wrote:It would require a global flood today to wipe off humanity. It only required a local flood then to do the same.

Yes, but you also take Ps 104 to be a creation psalm in which God promises that the waters would never again be moved from their boundaries. In that case, God couldn't flood the world anyway, judgment or no. So the whole, "Yeah, I'm never going to kill you all with water again" is kind of a superfluous, if not a bit empty, promise, don't ya think?

Why do you see it as an empty promise? I see it as an affirmation of such. More importantly though, your point escapes me.