That one was mentioned in another thread:
The scientific answer is: “We can’t know.” There is no way for us to tell, scientifically.
No, “evolution” refers to the theory, first proposed independently by Darwin and Wallace, that all organisms are related by descent, and that changes over time are due to inheritable changes.
What you defined is conflating abiogenesis with evolution, which are completely separate theories, whatever many people seem to claim.
3 Likes
Do you believe that the earth doesn’t move?
2 Likes
That is a ridiculous question.
Are you honestly going to use that as evidence to prove YEC wrong and Evolution right? Im sorry but the views you would then be claiming as supporting evidence are those that the vast majority YEC’s simply do not even believe!
No it isn’t. I want to see if you really and truly take the Bible literally. So again, do you believe that the earth doesn’t move?
2 Likes
There’s nothing ridiculous about it whatsoever.
If you believe that the earth is young but you don’t also believe that the earth is flat and covered with a solid dome, you are applying two different standards to how you interpret the first chapter of Genesis.
Don’t believe me? Answers in Genesis published a takedown of flat earth arguments a couple of years ago, which can be turned into a takedown of young earth arguments by doing a simple find and replace of just five words.
So which is it? Is the earth young and flat, or ancient and a globe? Because trying to argue for anything else is trying to have your cake and eat it.
5 Likes
Crickets
A question is not ridiculous just because it poses an inconvenience for you. As I replied to you in the other thread…
The valid point here, to spell it out for you, is that the Bible does in fact reflect the flat earth and domed firmament cosmology of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Scholars would agree. The only reason that you argue otherwise is that the Greeks have established that the earth is spherical for two millennia and half a millennia ago Galileo successfully argued against the then prevailing geocentric theology, and established that the earth revolves around the sun.
So over that past hundreds of years, theology has made its peace with the counterintuitive but scientifically established fact of heliocentrism. You do not feel the ground move, yet it does rotate and revolve. You can thank science for that understanding, or choose to ignore it at the cost of joining the looney flat earthers, many of whom base their belief, with solid textual justification, on the scriptures you yourself referenced.
In his letter to the Duchess Christina, Galileo spoke of those in the church who on the basis of these verses held fast to heliocentrism:
First they have endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical. …To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. …Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense. … For Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations.
These words are amazingly relevant to the YEC debate. You cannot dismiss @jammycakes point that measurement, “very exact observations”, is required to honestly present reality. Science first established that the earth moves, and it is science which has demonstrated that the earth is ancient.
5 Likes
Without event reading all of your reply…I have to lost this question to you beagle…
If the flat earthers were correct, how could they have proposed the earth being the Center of the universe when the very Bible narrative they follow says “in the beginning God”?
Clearly the problem there is that God is the Center of the universe…not the earth.
So no, your claims are not inconvenience to me, they are just plain wrong!
Also, using posts that I do not agree with are not supporting evidence so I feel that your posting them in a manner that appears to provide scholarly support for errant views is wasted on those of us intelligent enough to see through them.
I would then, what is the explainatiom for the very obvious fibres that should simply not even be there in those samples?
Your argument about soaking in a solution is absurd…PCR COvid test magnify the viral payload in order to detect the virus more readily when the sampled payload is so small it is not detect by RAT…your point is valid.
that should be center of the physical universe
How can God, who is not physical, be the center of a physical universe?
You want to rewrite this so it makes sense?
2 Likes
If you had bothered to read the original article you would have seen this is what was actually done.
2 Likes
What measurements do you have that tell us that the “very obvious fibres” should “simply not even be there in those samples”? The “very obvious fibres” were stuff such as collagen, which does tend to last a very long time. The stuff that really shouldn’t have been there in 68 million year old samples, but that should have been there in 4,500 year old samples, such as sequenceable DNA, wasn’t.
No Adam, it’s your analogy that is absurd. PCR Covid solutions and demineralising solutions are completely different things; please do not insult our intelligence by claiming otherwise.
The point, Adam, is that before you can make any claims about what should or shouldn’t have been there, you need to make sure your facts are straight about what actually was there. The fact that it needed to be soaked in a demineralising solution meant that, by definition, it was not “unpermineralised,” and to claim that it was, as I’ve heard YECs do time and time again, is lying.
Yes, precisely.
Did you get that from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier?
Anyways, you “In the beginning God” is not relevant to the verses referencing a stationary earth.
from a Christian perspective, it absolutely is relevant…if there is a creator, wouldn’t that logically coincide with his residence being the center of all things? How then can one possibly claim the center of the universe is the earth exactly?
Stationary earth is not consistent at all with the narrative we are presented within the first few chapters of Genesis or the last book of the Bible Revelation where God is the center of all things.
What does place the focus on the earth is merely the explanation of the fall of man, the initiation and implementation of the plan of salvation, and the final restoration of the world back to its former glory before the fall (a new heavens and a new earth). That is the focus of the bible, however, it does not mean the earth is the center of the universe and all other things revolve around it.
I do not subscribe to the idea that simply because the catholic church made a series of errant doctrines that we now know were aimed at nothing more than a power and money grab, that should be considered the appropriate understanding of the scriptures from where they apparently got said doctrine. You have to also keep in context, this is the same organization that burned bibles not written in Latin…only allowing the publication of Latin bibles that by and large the majority of people could not read!
EDIT…
here are a couple of questions that i would ask evolutionists…
let’s say that natural selection is truth and that, humanity progresses from a lower form of life to a higher one. That would i think also means that our intelligence grows as well which is i think is fairly self-evident. This would then mean in my world that sexuality grows via the process of natural selection as well.
so i would expect that anything that does not fit the model of survival should die out yes?
Ok, so explain the following…how then can homosexuality be something that has seemingly expanded in the last few decades rather than declined?
Also, shouldn’t homosexuality be a human condition that predates heterosexual behavior and that those individuals who are not capable of naturally procreating would therefore die out?
Another question…how do evolutionists explain rape? Shouldn’t rapists also have died out by now because this behavior should pre-date a consensual intimacy? I think we even have medical references where this behavior may be biological rather than social. It seems to me that in fact the opposite has happened here also.
The bible truth is that these behaviours are the result of sin…they have always been part of the fallen mans nature and that without God, they will continue.
1 Like
I don’t know anything about the evolutionary ins and outs of homosexuality.
However I can tell you that even if homosexuality is something that evolution can’t account for, it would only mean that the theory of evolution is incomplete. It would not mean that it is incorrect. The fact that humans and animals share a common ancestor is still as rock solid as they come, and, for what it’s worth, something that the Bible itself affirms. And even if humans and animals didn’t share a common ancestor, that would not change the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and not six thousand.
1 Like
That is like, totally not a logical inference.
The rest of your post I leave to the reader as an exemplar of just how bizarre YEC objections to evolution can get.
3 Likes
Sometimes it’s best to leave bad arguments unanswered and just let their badness speak for itself.
Something that perhaps I would do well to remember myself.
4 Likes