RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Audie]

Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

He isnt impressed with the evidence for evolution in the same sense that I am not impressed
the colour scheme in the engine room of a Russian submarine.

[Stu]

Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

[RickD]

Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

[Audie]

Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Finally happened. Your saracm has went over your head.

[RickD]

Hugh, Do you want to back up your assertion that most Christians believe the story of Noah's Ark is a fable?

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

If you think you're smarter than Stephen, well I can't argue with that.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

And I was referring to my getting involved in the evolution debate.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

What makes you say the Noah's Ark story is a fable? Nothing in the Bible indicates that it was a fable. In fact Jesus said: "Everybody kept on eating and drinking, men and women married, up to the very day Noah went into the ark and the Flood came and killed them all" (Luke 17:27) Here he refers to Noah and the flood not as a fable but as history."

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Finally happened. Your saracm has went over your head.

"Has went"?

I thought you went to college...

[Audie]

No, I don't. There are various polls of dubious provenance about, most of which suggest that 60% of Americans believe it's true, most of whom are evangelicals, while only 44% of Catholics do. How that applies to the rest of the world is anyone's guess.

Splendid. It's not quite a response to my question (read it closely again), but it'll do.

Presumably with your eyes shut. "From what I've seen I haven't been very impressed with the evidence for evolution." Well, fair enough. If 'from what you've seen' is a definitive assessment of the evidence for evolution, then you're far smarter than Stephen Mayer.

Quite so, after all, the myth had been repeated for 3000 years or so by then, so by your own criterion it was by then true.

You missed the point really. Remember you said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it eventually becomes the truth." So how do you know whether anything you think is true is really true, or just an oft repeated lie? Your remark suggests that you think I believe in evolution simply because it has been repeated often enough. However I could just as easily say the same of your beliefs, with rather more justification, because they have been repeated so much more. And if you think that this argument is fatuous when it comes to your beliefs, then it is equally fatuous to apply it to mine. So why say it?

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Finally happened. Your saracm has went over your head.

"Has went"?

I thought you went to college...

Oh, so solly! I neglected to take any ethnic studies courses on Trailer Park America.

Is it "has of went"?

[RickD]

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong?
Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Finally happened. Your saracm has went over your head.

"Has went"?

I thought you went to college...

Oh, so solly! I neglected to take any ethnic studies courses on Trailer Park America.

Is it "has of went"?

Don't ax me. Yur supposed to be the smart one. I'm the trailer park sort, low education, low income, and deeply superstitious.

[Audie]

Great point Stu!

Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Finally happened. Your saracm has went over your head.

"Has went"?

I thought you went to college...

Oh, so solly! I neglected to take any ethnic studies courses on Trailer Park America.

Is it "has of went"?

Don't ax me. Yur supposed to be the smart one. I'm the trailer park sort, low education, low income, and deeply superstitious.

"are" Should beaaa "I are".

[hughfarey]

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong? Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Yup. But see below.

Great point Stu! Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Nope. There is a lot of interesting theology about what Jesus knew and how he chose to communicate it. Google it. Luke famously says that he "grew in wisdom" as he got older, which is, of course, impossible if he was God. Similarly he occasionally asked non-rhetorical questions - to which, of course, he must have already known the answer. Whatever he actually knew, he chose to teach within the conventional wisdom of the time. So yes, Jesus's opinions, as spoken to and recorded by, the disciples, and us, were indeed "formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God."

[Stu]

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong? Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Yup. But see below.

Great point Stu! Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Nope. There is a lot of interesting theology about what Jesus knew and how he chose to communicate it. Google it. Luke famously says that he "grew in wisdom" as he got older, which is, of course, impossible if he was God. Similarly he occasionally asked non-rhetorical questions - to which, of course, he must have already known the answer. Whatever he actually knew, he chose to teach within the conventional wisdom of the time. So yes, Jesus's opinions, as spoken to and recorded by, the disciples, and us, were indeed "formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God."

How did He know of the future then and what events would befall mankind in the end days?

Surely then if He relied on the word of mouth of the people of the time, some of His wisdom could be fallible, and His message and words shouldn't be seen as infallible?

Do you believe that He performed miracles? Did He create many fish out of a few, did He walk on water?

Are you saying Jesus was wrong about Noah's Ark and that it was just a fable?

[Audie]

Those were Jesus' own words! Are you saying He was wrong? Are you saying that Jesus' opinion was formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God.

Yup. But see below.

Great point Stu! Maybe Hugh thinks the biblical story about Jesus, is a fable as well. At least that would be consistent.

Nope. There is a lot of interesting theology about what Jesus knew and how he chose to communicate it. Google it. Luke famously says that he "grew in wisdom" as he got older, which is, of course, impossible if he was God. Similarly he occasionally asked non-rhetorical questions - to which, of course, he must have already known the answer. Whatever he actually knew, he chose to teach within the conventional wisdom of the time. So yes, Jesus's opinions, as spoken to and recorded by, the disciples, and us, were indeed "formed by the reasoning of the day, rather than His infallible knowledge being the Son of God."

Then too there is much reliance on the unerring record of what he supposedly said.

[abelcainsbrother]

Actually there are a lot of creationists that accept evolution. That is a tough question to answer because evolution is so vast.But instead of just preaching about evolution,micro-evolution,macroevolution,adaptation,natural selection,speciation,mutations,the whole evolution tree,etc, how about presenting evidence that what you are explaining about them is true,that they really exist and that they can happen to cause life to evolve? Instead of just believing in these things by faith,assumption and imagination.

Most people that accept evolution just believe what a scientist says or what a science book says but they don't look for evidence to confirm any of it is true. I think to a lot of people it is more believable than the bible because of what most creationists teach it says and so they choose to believe it over the bible. But they don't realize that both could be wrong,they only want to think most creationists are wrong. I believe creationism is in a crisis and has been for a long time but there is denial about it.

Come on man, this is just ridiculous with you. You keep repeating the same thing over and over that I wonder if you actually believe it because it is simply not true that no one has presented you with any evidence. They have, plenty of it. From hugh to audie and even myself on those rare occasions I thought I could reach you. Look, I am simply incapable of caring any less with reference to your views vis-a-vis evolution, creation, gap theory, the flood, or even Catholicism. What I care about is honesty and for you to claim you weren't presented with evidence is a flat-out lie. You can say you weren't convinced by the evidence presented, you can say you offered counter-arguments why the evidence shown does not fit the conclusion drawn. But what you absolutely cannot say is that you weren't presented with any evidence.

Actually only Hugh has offered evidence but I refuted it. There is nothing dishonest about anything I've said concerning evolution. You may not take serious why I reject evolution,but I'm not being dishonest about it. When somebody brings up evidence for evolution or explains evolution and it is refuted you should pay more attention and look into it yourself. I have no reason to lie about evolution and I don't lie about it. Most evolutionists on here do not give evidence to discuss about evolution,they just believe it and preach it is true. I want to get into the evidence,but it is rare on this forum. People believe what they choose to and they can,but evidence is important and despite how much evidence has been piled up to support evolution,no scientist even knows if life evolves. Just think about that.

[abelcainsbrother]

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

I guess ab really does think he has studied evolution, knows a lot about it,
and is capable of "talking over" someone's head.

It is obviously not so, to anyone who actually has an interest,
let alone put in long hours' work in lab, field and lecture halls.


Easy to see as it would be to see I am cluelees if I tried to be the announcer
at football game. Or ab trying to do ballet. A man is supposed to know his limitations!

I'd be embarrassed to claim knowledge I dont have, but-

He isnt embarrassed to offer three made up and evidence free assertions
for how glaciers could survive a global flood, capping it with that it is god's
word. ( so he is incapable of being wrong?)

The current explanation is that the glaciers are stuck down.
Of course, they are not stuck. They move. If some part does temporarily freeze tight to
the bedrock, millions of tons pressure soon breaks it free.

I calculated the buoyant force per square ft if five miles of ice
went underwater. Anyone can do it. I forget what it was, but it
looked like about enough to pull a battleship in half. Ice dont freeze that tight to
rock. And of course, some ride on a cushion of liquid water. None are frozen down,
the point is moot.

But nope, ol'ab says he explained how ice could survive a flood.
(NEVER let no stinkin' facts mess with a good superstition)

I liked jac's idea that he doesnt get to talk about, aka mantra-chant,
about evolution till he admits he has no -zero- explanation for why polar ice does not
disprove his "flood"

I doubt it is possible, he has so much invested (see "sunk cost fallacy")
in gappitism, it might send him into a tailspin to accept that he is so mixed up,

But I guess his thinking is at least sincerely deranged; that is something.

It would be nice tho to see him on the road to rationality tho.

Go ahead and preach it is true,but let's get into the evidence. As usual you just declare evolution is true because you've been lectured to about it,etc. You don't have to be an expert or scientist to examine evidence behind evolution and realize it is nowhere near being confirmed true. Evolutionists typically imply that only scientists and experts can understand evolution and this is just apologetics of evolution. If only scientists and experts can understand it,what good is it? Evolution should be confirmed by evidence,but it is'nt and this is why only scientists and experts can understand the evidence behind it.They see what they want to see. Evolution is not the only way we can interpret the evidence in the earth.

And as far as the gap theory all I'm doing is coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence is telling us. You believe the evidence has to do with life evolving continually over billions of years,while I do not believe life evolves and the evidence in the earth only proves there was a former world different than this world we now live in. When you look at a fossil? Instead of thinking it evolved over billions of years just think instead this is just life that lived in the former world until it died and up until that world perished completely. Then read 2nd Peter 3:6

It is taking the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what its telling us. It is a much better theory based on the fossils that have been found and the massive amount of evidence for life over billions of years at the very least and possibly even longer than even scientists say because our God is eternal.

[neo-x]

ACB evolution has evidence after evidence its just you like many other anti-evolutionists don't understand and acknowledge it.

No evidence life evolves though.If you know about evolution then nothing I have explained throughout this thread is wrong concerning evolution. You just choose to believe life evolves. Please provide evidence like I do if life evolves,just doubting me because of a sterio-type that creationists reject evolution because they don't understand it does not make you right. None of you who have chosen to believe life evolves have shown or proven me wrong about why I reject evolution. I'm not trying to be a know it all,but I reject evolution for very legit reasons and you should too.

Sorry ACB, you don't understand it and you show no evidence, just a few odd statements but your argument and your so called refutations are ignorant of TOE. Nothing more than a denial; and I kind of feel bad that you have convinced yourself of it.

BTW I am not saying creationists can't understand evidence. But in my opinion very few do understand it, and that is because like anything it's hard work to read and analyse and collect info. A lot of people would rather read a short article on the internet by some pseudoscience website or an antievolution or religious one and think they understand it. They don't.

I'll give you though that the the non-religious group have the people likewise who don't know much but follow the latest through internet or forums.

[hughfarey]

How did He know of the future then and what events would befall mankind in the end days?

I've no idea. You said he was omniscient. That means he knew everything. Your question does not address my comment.

Surely then if He relied on the word of mouth of the people of the time, some of His wisdom could be fallible, and His message and words shouldn't be seen as infallible?

Very confused. If he relied on the wisdom of the time, etc. he was certainly not infallible, but he didn't. Those who listened to him heard what he said, not what he knew, and not everything he said was literally true. Your question does not address my comment.

Do you believe that He performed miracles?

Sure. The fact of a miracle depends on the observer, not on the miracle-worker.

Did He create many fish out of a few?

I very much doubt it, but that's not important. The people who were there thought he had, or at least that was the sense they made out of what happened, and what they thought and reported is more important than what actually happened.

Did He walk on water?

Same answer as above.

Are you saying Jesus was wrong about Noah's Ark...

No. I'm saying Jesus knew the truth, but chose to teach his followers using a context they could more easily understand.

... and that it was just a fable?

Yes.