Quora comment argument with several people vs a Gerald who believes in the Noah’s Ark.
Given a argument/point, he will always find a way to twist it within the framework of his belief system and Bible to fit the narrative.
This is the same kind of thought pattern being demonstrated by lots of politicians and since a lot of Christians already think like this, it is very easy for Christians to fall in line with whoever promotes this type of thinking.
: Point is provided about impossibility of wood and engineering.
Response: They knew things back then that we didn’t know, like engineering and materials.
: Only a person who doesn’t understand engineering and materials would say something like this.
I would like to go through this and annotate and understand why and how this type of thinking occurs and manifests.
LOG: Not fully formatted yet.
Not to mention the worlds biggest wooden boat built was like half the size of the ark, and it sank because the wood couldn’t support a ship that size and it twisted and bent slightly in the waves. Thus gaps opened, it leaked, it took on water, and it sank.Upvote·86Reply
They’ve also determined that boat would have torn itself up once put to the task it was built for. They used physics to discern a general model could have supported a certain mass and remained afloat, another study used physics and understanding of the forces involved and determined there was no way the ark could have withstood its OWN structural stress, let alone that placed on it by cargo, while afloat.Upvote·21ReplyGerald McDonald·December 27, 2019
We know from past experiences that we have been wrong and that ancient man was able to perform monumental tasks.
But considering the fact that God gave the blueprints, after making the universe with all its structural problems, an Ark would not have been a test of His knowhow. Plus since He holds the Universe together, sustaining it all with His power, then there is no reason to think that He would not have been doing so for the Ark.Upvote·1ReplyColin Sanders·December 27, 2019
Yes, we do ancient man was able to perform monumental tasks, this is not what I’m denying. YOU are saying that ancient man could defy the laws of physics, and that is simply being foolish. A wooden ship simply could not withstood the stress necessary.Upvote·13ReplyGerald McDonald·June 8, 2020
The ark is a ship. We have plenty of large ships that are seaworthy. “oh it was larger than our ships of today”. Yes. But it was really thought for along time that the ships we have that are seaworthy today was impossible for a while.
And besides that. The engineering feats of the pyramids and other mysterious acts are just now being understood.
Just because we don’t understand how it was possible, doesn’t mean Noah and others of his time were not aware of things that we don’t know of today.
The Bible clearly shows the people knew of things back in the past that we didn’t come to know until recently.
And we also have the proven reliability of the Bible historical record.
And of course the evidence that many scientists say exists about the actual Global flood.
Even those scientists that deny a Global flood, do not deny there were several cataclysmic floods. And since they were not in the past, and the Bible does mention the flood along with the historical records of many ancient civilization closer to the actual time of the flood, we can not disprove the Global flood was not a true occurrence.
So there really is no reason to doubt the Ark.UpvoteReply
Understanding the physics we don’t yet understand is completely different from misinterpreting the physics to mean something we don’t understand (what you are doing).
It is clear that you have such a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of engineering (and science in general) that you make these comparisons thinking it makes plausible scientific sense.
Almost everything you said besides “people back then can be aware of things we are not aware of today” and “several cataclysmic floods have occurred in the past” is false.
You are well trained in the art of interpreting the bible to suit your needs and mixing small numbers of true facts with ideas that sound plausible and ideas that aren’t logical to make them all sound more true and acceptable.
Are you an evangelist? I used to be oneUpvote·2Reply
“Almost everything you said besides “people back then can be aware of things we are not aware of today” and “several cataclysmic floods have occurred in the past” is false.”
Where is the evidence it is false?
Missoula floods – Wikipedia.
The Mediterranean nearly dried up. A cataclysmic flood revived … (more)UpvoteReplyJames Hi·6m ago
>And besides that. The engineering feats of the pyramids and other mysterious acts are just now being understood.
This isn’t exactly a case of misunderstood engineering. We understand all too well, a ship of wood of that size in those weather conditions would have been reduced to kindling in no time. One has to be completely ignorant of the facts to try to maintain the idea that it was possible.
>The Bible clearly shows the people knew of things back in the past that we didn’t come to know until recently.
The Bible also clearly shows that simple facts were beyond the understanding of the writers of the bible. Considering what is always portrayed as the “voice” behind the Bible, this says a lot…ie. the Bible is NOT the works of an omniscient entity, instead it clearly represents the hands of self-centered and deluded men.
>And of course the evidence that many scientists say exists about the actual Global flood.
There is none. At least none that stand up to scrutiny.
>Even those scientists that deny a Global flood, do not deny there were several cataclysmic floods. And since they were not in the past, and the Bible does mention the flood along with the historical records of many ancient civilization closer to the actual time of the flood, we can not disprove the Global flood was not a true occurrence.
Uh, sorry, no. We absolutely can and have disproven the Global flood. It simply isn’t possible. The only people that hold onto the idea that it was are people like yourself you deny all facts to the contrary, tell lies about what scientists have and have not proven, and refuse to budge because your deluded world view depends on the idea that the Bible is accurate.Upvote·3ReplyGerald McDonald·June 8, 2020
“a ship of wood of that size in those weather conditions would have been reduced to kindling in no time.”. I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that you took the time and expense to build this vessel and found it to be useless. When did you perform this?
But as I said, there were engineers back then that appear to know a few things we don’t know of today.
And like it or not they may have known how to make this vessel seaworthy.
Plus we do have life still. This means that it Ark did work. Because we have previous civilizations that confirm the Global flood as real.
So if you don’t know something. That doesn’t mean that someone else didn’t know.
And Dover, you asked a question but didn’t stick around for the answer. Closing the door to allow me to respond.
The amount of ignorance one has to maintain to hold the position you do is staggering. It’s not the engineering, there’s not trick to it. a wooden ship that size is simply not feasible. There are examples in history that demonstrate such. We have engineering models to predict the stresses, and once again, beings as you have NO integrity to respond to it, the kind of forces that would be put on that vessel to flood the world in 40 days would destroy it and even every vessel we have built today with far stronger materials. The insipid “if you haven’t built it you cannot claim it” is just a moronic argument.
There is no way to make such a vessel as the ark seaworthy, and no amount of burying your head in a Bible is going to change that.
We have life still because the world flood never happened.
We have civilizations far older than the flood, none of them have records of a global flood.
“a wooden ship that size is simply not feasible. There are examples in history that demonstrate such.”
That you know of. Flight was at one time thought impossible. Space flight out of the question. Splitting the atom. Genetic engineering. all are possible when not too long ago, was not even thought about.
We are talking about humans who were able to survive ice ages.
It is doubtful that we would be able to do this. Even with what we have today.
Science and mankind, G.M. reasoned all those discoveries you listed as well as getting us into space. No dieties involved. Further down the rabbit hole of ignorance you go, G.M. You need to come into the 21st century, boy. 🙄😎UpvoteReplyColin Sanders·June 8, 2020
Ha. Me delusional. You have many scientists who favor the global flood.
You have many scientists who don’t favor a global flood, but they see nothing wrong with accepting several cataclysmic floods of unknown proportions.
You should be able to reason on your own, that since the scientists who don’t accept the global flood but they will accept the “almost global floods”, that there is no reason to reject the possibility that their acceptable to them “almost global floods” were the one real global flood.
>You have many scientists who favor the global flood.
No, you don’t. You have many religiously deranged lunatics that refuse to address actual facts, like yourself, who claim to be scientists. There are no actual scientists that beholden to the claim of a global flood.
>You have many scientists who don’t favor a global flood, but they see nothing wrong with accepting several cataclysmic floods of unknown proportions.
Yes, there have been many large scale floods, the evidence supports such events. Scientists are the ones who have provided the logical explanation for the evidence. To jump that this then becomes a global flood is nothing but childish fantasy. To claim they are saying “almost global” as you are, is A LIE. Do you ever get tired of lying?
Yes, the fact you keep lying and pushing nonsense as facts, using extreme exaggeration of facts you do not understand to justify a childish belief, is delusional. This is not logical. Logical is not “well it sounds good to what I want to believe”. Logic has structure and laws, and you violate them repeatedly in your attempts to push unfounded beliefs as rational and intelligent.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·June 8, 2020
Colin yes there are. Deny it all you want but there are scientists who look at the evidence and see the global flood.
The scientists who support your understanding look at that same evidence and see many really bad floods, just none to have been global.
“Yes, there have been many large scale floods, the evidence supports such events”
Now above is what you said. Amidst the poor choice of degrading referrals to Creationists. (such poor taste on your part). But you declare as I said that some scientists look at the evidence and they claim it was not a global flood. But several small almost global floods.
Now I ask you why couldn’t the small ones have been the global ones? What prevents them from being the error and then global flood the true reason for the evidence seen?UpvoteReplyColin Sanders·June 8, 2020
You can lie all you want, it’s blatantly clear that is all you are doing. I guarantee you cannot provide evidence of any scientist publishing in actual peer reviewed primary literature that makes those claims. Answers in Genesis, Institute of Creation Research – none of these count. They do not conduct science, no matter how you may wish to portray so.
Poor taste on my part? I’ve never met a creationist that wasn’t an absolute liar. Making up facts is lying. Professing assertions without evidence is lying.
“Several small almost global floods” – is self-contradictory nonsense. You’re grasping at anything that sounds good because you don’t have the intelligence to actually think about what you’re saying nor the integrity to analyze the data. Why couldn’t small ones have been the global ones? Because it is insane to assert such. “small” doesn’t mean “global”. Only GLOBAL means “global”. You could have small floods on all the continents at the same time, it doesn’t add up to a global flood. It doesn’t matter how many glasses of water you spill in your kitchen, it doesn’t mean Europe was under 2000′ of water.Upvote·1ReplyGerald McDonald·June 9, 2020
I hope this is not what I said. “Several small almost global floods” You would be correct that it would be contradictory. But I believe I have said that the scientists who didn’t believe in the global flood, claimed that the evidence showed several massive cataclysmic floods.
At least this is what I wanted to say.
In fact, looking back in my post before this response to your last response, I said, “Even those scientists that deny a Global flood, do not deny there were several cataclysmic floods. “
So I think you don’t have your facts straight.
And just to inform you of one of the evidence supporting a global flood. Is the undeniable evidence that marine animal fossils have been discovered on the highest mountain ranges all around the world.
Yes, I know the atheist attempt to dismiss this by claiming that the mountain ranges were ocean bottom at one time and pushed upward by geothermic forces.
But the fact is they are there. And all of the land surfaces of the world were not pushed up to the height of the mountains.
This has been an amusing back and forth to read so I won’t take sides, but piece of advice. Next time you cite sources make sure they aren’t from people laughed out of academia.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·June 11, 2020
Jonathan, there were some scoffers when the Wright brothers flew. There were plenty of scoffers when it was suggested that the earth moved around the Sun.
There is a huge difference between scoffing at the Wright brothers vs scoffing at pseudoscience.
one is just very difficult due to lack of knowledge and technology.
the other is misinterpreting science or using pseudoscience to suit a narrative.
your comparison is more akin to believing that the Wright brothers said they could fly without any technology.
if you knew anything about science and how the community works, you would understand there are very clear ways the scientific community as a whole filters out what is good or bad science and this is crucial for science. This is why it is important to trust the scientific community at large and not just select individuals.
You seem to think you can just be open minded and think “we don’t know what we don’t know” so that somehow proves what you are saying by proving the negative.
This is what people – that have no idea about science – say when they have certain beliefs that they want to be true but the evidence shows otherwise.
It’s like if someone says they walked on water (without any assistance of any kind e.g. technology, people, etc.).
Scientists would say this is not possible, while people that want to believe would say “you don’t know that for sure” because that is the only desperate rebuttal that can be given in their defense.
This is a symptom of being completely scientifically illiterate and not understanding why, how, cause & effect, etc. and thinking that everyone else is as inconsequential or as stupid as the lowest common denominator. Faith tells you to trust in God, you don’t need to know anything other than God. Why would you (or anyone else) need to study science when you already know God did it? Why would you believe what anyone else says if God is the main source of answers anyway?
All this creates a positive feedback loop of stupidity and reliance on fallacies.
Instead of understanding that we can understand certain things are difficult, certain things are borderline impossible, and certain things are literally impossible, you want to reduce all of it to “we just don’t know” because of your reliance on faith (=ignorance). And no, studying the bible does not equate, that is just doubling down on your gamble.Upvote·1ReplyGerald McDonald·July 2, 2020
The Wright brothers proved that flight was possible when the “scoffers”( most of them at least), when they said it wasn’t. Especially when there were others who made the attempt and ended up not being able to escape gravity. Some with some gruesome endings.
But evolution has no “Wright brothers” successors. No one has been able to produce one example of one life form ever having given birth to one of its descendants or the descendant’s descendants that went on to show a diversity of one kind of life form to that of a new kind of life form.
Your attempt to do an end around by claiming I claim God, is useless. I clearly stated that there is scientific evidence that disputes and contradicts any claims that evolutionists have made to try to prove their evolution is sound science.
The first thing you must do is demonstrate that evolution has occurred. Where is this evidence?
Can you show that there really was a “common” ancestor?
One is assumed, claimed to have existed. Only one. But what evidence is there that there was a common ancestor. Sure life did begin. But there is no evidence that life began as the atheists insist. Neither is there any evidence that says there was only one life form. There could have been many different life forms that came to life.
Now. What evidence would you happen to have that shows me wrong?
There is none. So there is no reason to believe that a “common” ancestor came to life and was how all of the kinds of life forms came to be.
It is clear that you have such a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of engineering (and science in general) that you make these comparisons thinking it makes plausible scientific sense.
You are well trained in the art of interpreting the bible to suit your needs and mixing small numbers of true facts with ideas that sound plausible and ideas that aren’t logical to make them all sound more true and acceptable.
Those links you gave are not evidence, they are fiction. You have demonstrated you don’t have the integrity or intelligence to understand “evidence” nor to have an honest discussion. I said previously Answers in Genesis doesn’t qualify…and you give them as your evidence. I’m not here to talk about imaginary garbage that comes from the mouths of religiously delusional idiots. They are not scientists, their warped imaginations are not facts. If you start with the conclusion, reject evidence that does not fit, force other views to make what you can fit, and present this as “science”, you are wrong. That is what the links in the unintelligent garbage you take as “evidence” is doing.UpvoteReplyRobert Devor·June 9, 2020
How can previous civilizations confirm this as they were, in the mythical story, wiped out? Wow! Your reasoning becomes more and more bizarre as you continue down this rabbit hole, G.M.Upvote·2ReplyView More RepliesGerald McDonald·January 12, 2020
Please build one first and then make your claims. Ok. Fact of the matter is God told him to build the Ark. He built it according to God’s specifications. And like it or not, God has the ability to make sure what He makes will survive. Even if He has to supernaturally do it.
We have reason to believe the flood occurred. We have the animals from that Ark, all over the world. So therefore the Ark did do what it was supposed to do.
And Robert is a non believer, who doesn’t like anyone to dispute what he claims.
He likes to attack from the back and hide.
By the way, Robert, what was the point of the article. I read it once before. Not finding the Ark, does not mean it never existed. It means that it hasn’t been found.
Just like your “evolution” that has never been observed.
But THERE IS, historical record that the flood occurred. And that there were survivors who rode out the flood in a boat.
How you utterly fail at logic. If that is the only manner by which it’s validity can be ascertained, then YOU are required to do as much yourself. There is no evidence to support the fairy tale of the Ark, not as it is told. Keep telling yourself your lies, it doesn’t make them true.Upvote·21ReplyGerald McDonald·February 1, 2020
There is plenty of evidence. Not only from the Bible, (one of the most accepted historically accurate manuscripts ever), but also from the historical manuscripts from the ancient civilizations
There is also the fossil world that show thousands of fossils buried together, many of them looking as thought they were caught unawares.
The Bible is accepted as one of the most historically accurate manuscripts? Not even close.
There is no fossil evidence of a flood.
There is no evidence of a flood, even where such evidence would be expected.
15 Historical Proofs of the Bible – Amazing Bible Timeline with World History
Please go down to #1 “The Smithsonian department of archeology”
“evolution is extremely fell documented and has been directly observed.”
Ok. You sound convinced. Why not provide the evidence that has convicted you about this.
Which of the descendants of any lifeform do you know of or have a picture or video of that evolved. And into which other lifeform did you see it evolve into?
Thr Bible containing some real historical events does not mean all events are real. We have confirmed those events were real by cross referencing them with other sources from the period – not by taking the Bible at face value. Because the Bible mentions some obvious fiction, such as the creation of the world.
You cite Dr Walt Brown as evidence of tjr flood – his theories of ‘proving’ the flood are rebutted by even other creationists.
The link from Robert Ballard you posted isn’t even about a world wide flood! Its about a localised flood in the Black Sea region, which was the basis of the story in the Bible. Still a far cry from the world wide flood you’re arguing for.
As for evolution, it has been observed in fruit flies. Fruit flies’ microbiomes shape their evolution: Biologists observed distinct shifts in the genomes of fruit flies fed different bacterial species after just five generations
We also observe many features of animals which do not make sense if they were designed, but are explained perfectly by evolution. For example the vocals cord rather excessive detour below the heart found in animals. Laryngeal nerve – RationalWiki
We have also ‘forced’ ourselves, selective breeding has given us the domesticated animals and food that we eat today. Selective breeding is just humans making sure the animals we want to breed do so, passing on the mutations we want. As opposed to natural evolution where it’s left to the randomness of death.
The fossil record also firmly supports evolution, the more complex an organism the more recently it appears. Quite contrary to everything being created at once.
“The Bible containing some real historical events does not mean all events are real.”
Well now, then what you feel are not real you need to provide support.
In any avenue where facts are sought, the one most likely used is the one that has been the most accurate.
And as shown, the Bible is such a source.
You don’t want to believe in a World Wide Flood? Provide witnesses from that time era that will dispute it.
Having a bunch of eggheads from today, denying the then, is mute when there is a credible witness from the then that states the contrary. And furthermore the fact that there are other channels from either before or immediately after the even, that also confirms the occurrence in question.
And the fact is you can find someone and something that provides evidence to your liking, (just look at many court cases), but if there is a credible witness or more than the other side it will swing the vote, the majority of the times. And when the evidence of the other side is shown to have a different twist to it and can be turned into support for the other side, then it,s game over.
That’s not how proof works – if you want to believe a magic man created the world YOU have to prove it, and you can’t just dismiss all the evidence to the contrary.
You AGAIN linked the article regarding Robert Ballard. Read what he says! He is NOT arguing for the biblical flood! He discovered proof of a major flood event, but ti was localised to the Black Sea region. Incidentally that is where the Bible is mostly set. Hence, you can argue that the Bible correctly recounts that a flood event occured – yes. But it is entirely several steps too far to then take the entire biblical flood story as accurate, because that is not what has been discovered.
“He is NOT arguing for the biblical flood”.
And? You are arguing without even taking into account the many other historical histories of major civilizations who also speak of a flood. Some of only minor catastrophic consequences, granted. But others of biblical proportions.
The differences in sizes does not rule out the one. This is explained by the fact that eyewitnesses die off and the story changes over years. And there is no reason why those who come along later begin to doubt the narration themselves and so begin to reformulate and place a spin on the story that is more palatable and believable to them.
The fact is that to discount the world wide flood, as being what it was simply because there is evidence of floods in other parts of the world, is silly. If there is evidence that says a flood occur, unless it was observed to have been localized, it is evidence that it was the Global Flood.
“I notice you have nothing to say on evolution now either.”
Meaning what? That I changed my mind?
Have you provided any pictures, videos, or eye witnesses that contradict what is being observed today. Is there anything that shows one kind of lifeform having offspring that when born it is not like the parent?
Not a one.
This is the evidence that you provided that supposedly proves a world wide flood, yet all it does is prove more localised flood. So where is the evidence for a world wide flood?
Surely the same evidence that proves the localised flood should be evident across the globe! But it isn’t. There’s nothing special about multiple civilizations giving stories about floods. Firstly, the Bible drew supernatural stories from many different cultures – resurrection is also a common trope. And it’s not like floods are particularly unique events todya.
You seem to misunderstand how evolution works. Tiny, imperceptable, mutations build over millions of generations. We’re not talking about a giraffe giving birth to a dog. And we HAVE observed this, in fruit flies, in dogs, in sheep, in cows, etc.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 14, 2020
This is because you can’t get past your prejudice. The fact is there have been according to the atheist, massive, cataclysmic, localized life ending flooding, all over the world. At different times of the planet. This is what they want to believe. And all the evidence that they should be considering they refuse to accept.
Historical records saying that the flood was not localized but world wide. The Bible says it was not just a localized flooding.
The evidence in the topography of the earth is telling us this. But to the atheist it means localized.
Why? Why could this not be the evidence for that World Wide flood? The only thing stopping this from being so, is the prejudice of those who refuse to accept that the Bible is again historically correct.
“ou seem to misunderstand how evolution works. Tiny, imperceptable, mutations build over millions of generations.”
Now, where is the evidence for this? I am not misunderstanding what you and others like you have said. I have told you what you are saying is pure hearsay.
Supply the evidence that the mini, baby steps have in any way caused one kind of lifeform to become a different kind of lifeform
And since you can’t today provide this evidence then this goes a evidence that it had never been taking place either.
We see not that a bacteria has been having baby steps. They are all looking like the supposedly billions of year old fossils of bacteria that have been found.
There are no mini baby steps of one celled life becoming multicelled lifeforms. Plus they all appear to have been found at the same time in the same depths of earth.
We can look at the saved samples of DNA of all the race horses and dogs and whatever that have been bred for years. And when they are compared to the DNA samples of those same lifeforms today, you will find that the DNA samples may not be from the same original lifeforms, however they are of the same kind of lifeforms. And they are not looking like they are going to become another kind of lifeform.
The topography of the earth does NOT show us evidence of a global flood. It shows us evidence of massive floods in local areas. This is the article you have linked to me twice – my friend it is you who cannot look past your prejudice. The only historical evidence of there being a global flood is in the Bible, which as I’ve already mentioned makes numerous other claims which are absolutely absurd.
Such as the age of the earth, the creation of the earth, etc etc.
I already have shown you how we have observed these tiny changes over generations – in fruit flies. We also observe this in bacteria, we call these ‘super bugs’ as they evolve resistance to modern medicines. We have also observed these tiny changes leading to big changes – in dogs, cats, sheep, cattle, chickens, corn, etc, etc, etc.
And we this in the fossil record. Granted, in the fossil record only major changes are observable due to the nature of fossils and their formations. But, you can plainly see that the likes of elephants didn’t exist millions of years ago. But we see things which become increasingly like elephants as you go back in time.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 14, 2020
Wait a minute. Can you not see that you have blinders on? You should be able to realize that there is not a difference between a World Wide Flood, and large massive floods. The results would be the same.
And this is part of the proof.
Early Earth May Have Been Completely Covered by Oceans
I have shown how we have observed evolution in fruit flies. How after dozens of generations when you compared the flies at the end to the flies at the beginning, they were distinctly different.
The same is true of dogs, cats, etc. We see the same in the fossil record.
Evolution is like this…
You can clearly see that at the top its green, and at the bottom it’s yellow. But moving from one pixel to the next there’s no perceptible change. That is how every time an animal gives birth, it’s to the same animal. But after millions of generations you look back and they’re miles away from where they finished.
Worldworld flood is HUGELY different to large yet localised floods. You’re telling me I’m blinkered but you’re willfully believing that those are comparable? It’s like having a flood in your bathroom, and sueing your insurance for not paying out for your entire house.
Your first link suggests that the earth was a water world about three billion years before humans evolved – which is why I say it’s not relevant to the flood discussion.
Nor does the ubiquity of flood myths mean Noah’s flood is accurate. As we’ve agreed, major floods have occured all over the world at different points in history (and continue to do so today). Secondly, a lot of stories get passed between cultures, and often change to suit that culture more. The Bible borrows loads of stories from other cultures and religions.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 15, 2020
Jonathan, Did any of the fruit flies write a diddy? Did any of them become a “horse fly” or a “house fly”. How about a “dragon fly” or even a dragon?
What was started out with in the beginning of the experiment is what was ended up with in the end of experiment some 50 or 60 years later. It may even be running today. The only thing the fruit flies after the first ones did not fare so good.
Take a look at especially the 2nd paragraph of this one following
Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution
I understand your green to yellow analogy. But it’s not helping your case. I can see the slight changes from green to yellow. But you are not realizing a few things. One an intelligence would need to manipulate the color scale for this to happen.
Another thing is, where do you see any lifeform going through the kind of changes that you just provided.
Are you suggesting that the changes would come along little by little? Where is the proof of this?
Can you see this in the fossil record? Really? Did you see the animals before they became fossils? Did you see any of them give birth?
Just by looking at the different kinds of lifeforms alive today, do you think that if a few of them died, and became fossilized, would you be able to say that one evolved from the other? Would there be some similarities? And yes there would be similarities. But you and I know that they were different animals in the beginning. So even though we have found some similarities, we know that those similarities were not due to one having evolved from the other.
We see, as you perceived, fully distinct lifeforms that died and became fossils. Each one of them if they had or had they the opportunity to mate and breed, would have had descendants like themselves. No No. let’s not read what we are not seeing today, into our conclusions from the past which were not seen either.
What we are seeing today is our best data, for us to form the conclusion from times when we were not able to witness it.
When a criminal investigator enters a crime scene, what helps him form his conclusions about what has happened is what he has learned from previous classes as he was studying, and from previous crime scenes he and others have worked and passed along.
First of all part of our crime scene, is not a crime scene at all. You have live subjects. And looking at the different kinds of organisms there is without a doubt an unmistakable fact that they are not the same kinds of lifeforms. Even among those of the same kinds, (the different birds, cats, dogs…..) there is a clear unquestionable fact that there are differences. So from this one can not conclude evolution,, Can they?
But let’s say that mother elephant has a baby elephant. First of all this is what we would expect right? But what if we found a parasitic worm along side the baby elephant. Which one would be what the mama elephant stepped on. We would not be able to conclude that the mama elephant gave birth to the worm.
What would be the basis for our conclusion. It would be because we have seen that mama elephants give birth to baby elephants. And only if we had never seen a worm before would we consider the possibility that the worm came out of the elephant. But we already know that elephants give birth to elephants. So if we knew about parasites we would suspect the worm did come from the mama elephant but that it was not the same as the same kind as the elephant.
Returning back to the fossil record, we use today to discern that the many different kinds of lifeforms represented by the fossils were all fossils. They used to be living organisms. And that they used to be different kinds of living organisms. Not that one evolved from the other. A preposterous fantasy of an undisciplined mind. ,UpvoteReplyJonathan Dale·March 15, 2020
600 generations is nothing in the grand scheme of evolution – however small differences are visible within just that tiny sample.
I suggest you go and talk to a dog breeder, ask them about dog breeds came about!
“600 generations is nothing in the grand scheme of evolution – however small differences are visible within just that tiny sample.”
Here’s the thing. You haven’t shown that 600 generation will do anything to an organism except cause it to grow old and die.
The small differences indeed are seen, but they do not need 600 generations, nor 99% of that time to see slight changes from one generation of a lifeform being born from a male and female parents.
What is seen is that babies are always born like their parents.
You have not shown me anything that has been supported with evidence. Unlike you I don’t accept something without having evidence to support it. Especially when what is being “claimed” contradicts what IS observed.UpvoteReplyJonathan Dale·March 15, 2020
“unlike you I don’t accept anything without being shown evidence to support it”
Nope. I have evidence that God exists. Life itself is this evidence. It has been shown that life could only have come from another life.
We have the fact that all civilizations have had a god or gods in their history. And man only knows what he has at one time experienced.
The Bible also gives us evidence for God.
What is not seen is a life coming from inanimate matter. What is not seen is a cell pulling itself together from nothing and becoming the first life ever. And what is not seen is something that is impossible to happen, being able to become possible if there is an unlimited amount of time for it to take place.
You can’t show that the descendants of any of the lifeforms ever being born as different form their parents.
Abiogenesis is a thing, and we have observed mutations from one generation of animals to the next, and we have observed these mutations building to create altogether different animals.
Most (not all) cultures may have created some idea of God, but all have created very different god’s. Why would you believe in the god of the Bible, as opposed to the god of the Torah or Quran? There’s just as much supporting evidence for those.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 15, 2020
Where are they? if there are so many presenting a picture of these different kinds from what their parents looked like should be very easy.
Simply produce pictures of descendants that when born were not of the same kind as their parents.
The God of the Torah is the God of the Bible. And there is a little of the Quran in the Torah. The Torah, refused Christ. This is why their Torah was cut short abruptly. And the Quran, pulls truth and mixes it with error.
There are more god’s. Norse, Roman, Hindu, Deistic, etc etc etc. Why do you reject those? Show me the evidence that the Qur’an is mixed with error, whereas the Bible is fact? Bearing in mind the Bible is one of the most recent religions with some of the most revisions!
As for showing you when something gave birth to a different animal – as mentioned previously that isn’t how it works! Animals are born with slight, imperceptible mutations. A wolf never gave birth to a Labrador. However, over thousands of generations these slight mutations that humans chose to allow to be passed on to the next generation added up until eventually you have a Labrador, but it is impossible to look back and say “the mother was a wolf, the son is a Labrador”.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 16, 2020
No. There is only One God. The others were imitations made up to take the place of the true God, because they forgot who He was, but they knew that there was God.
“Kinds” is a bullshit term made up by creationists when the evidence for evolution became so overwhelming that to deny it occured at all was a ludicrous proposition.
The Pope himself is not a creationist, he confirms that evolution and the big bang are real. He just states that “god guided them”.
We cannot demonstrate larger evolution because the time scales are simply too large – but it is evident in the fossil record.
A fossil record that simply doesn’t support the idea of creationism. How come almost none of the animals that existed today existed millions of years ago? How come humans occured only so very recently, yet according to the Bible were created at pretty much the same time as everyone else?
And if he tells you it is raining outside are you going to go outside and even though the sun is out without a drop of rain falling tell yourself it is raining? if he tells you that God is real, are you going to believe him? (ha, did I get you?).
Yes. the Bible says there is no other God but God. Isaiah 44:6–8; Isaiah 45:5;
The Bible has been proven to be beyond reproach down through the ages. It has been the support for millions of people down through the ages. It has provided future events thousands of years before they took place.
Bible Prophecy – 13 Popular Fulfilled Prophecies Signs
All of those prophecies are meaningless – they are extremely vague and generic events.
I also suggest you research the creation of the Bible, it is far from an unreproachable document!
And if you take the account of the Bible so literally, it is not even internally consistent. For example the taxes that were going on at the time of Jesus’s birth occured twelve years after King Herod died.
Why not take a seminar about the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation? Then deny or accept them.
“Its account of the creation of the earth is utterly wrong both in the order that things were created and the age of the earth.”
I’ve already watched videos on it.
Prophecies need to be specific to have any value what so ever. It doesn’t work if it’s only obvious when looking back and thinking “well that kinds fits”.
I’m think your brief perusing of subject matter that is far more complicated than the evolution you believe you understand, is needing more than what you have so far. So watch this and then let’s talk.
I watched a bit of his lecture, and it’s a joke.
“The Bible says this will happen… and it happens later in the Bible! Wow a prophecy fulfilled!” it’s not fulfilling a prophecy if it was written after the events took place.
And as I said already, generic and vague events cannot be prophecised. It does not take a genius to accurately predict that there will be a great plague, or a great enemy, or something of the sort.Upvote·2ReplyGerald McDonald·March 16, 2020
And you are obviously being obstinate. Early evolutionists, atheists, were completely determined to demonstrate that the prophecies of the Bible were written at a later time. And they all failed. And guess what? So will you.UpvoteReplyJonathan Dale·March 16, 2020
We’ve already established that isn’t how it works.
The creationist keeps obfuscating and demanding one more, just one more, despite his global flood and ark never occurred. But it doesn’t matter. Ignore, ignorance and recycle the literature and everything is all right. 🙉🙊🙈
The alleged archeological history cited, The Trumpet, is a creationist non peered review article which cherry picks science and the bible to weave a supporting report of their claims. More recycled religious tactics to give credence to biblical mythology. 🙈🙊🙉Upvote·3ReplyView More RepliesColin Sanders·February 1, 2020
There is NO evidence. No shred of physical evidence whatsoever that can stand up to scrutiny and doesn’t contradict other evidence. What you have best is what you demonstrate here time and time again: wild imagination that refuses to look at the real world.Upvote·8ReplyGerald McDonald·February 1, 2020
My imagination is what actually occurs every day to each and every one of the different kinds of lifeforms. They each give birth to others of their own kind.
- No. You need to build an ark to prove it can be. That’s how it works.
- Can you please explain how you simultaneously claim that no evidence for the ark does not mean it didn’t exist but that no evidence for evolution (actually there are tons of evidence that it does but you ignore that) means that evolution doesn’t exist.
It is precisely this low level of understanding and lack of logic and facts that exhibits why the bible and unfounded irrational belief in ancient fairy stories is so ridiculous.Upvote·13ReplyGerald McDonald·June 9, 2020
There is evidence for the ark and the flood. I didn’t say there was not. In fact one of the things that is denied by the atheists is the possibility the evidence we say proves evidence for the Global flood, they say there were several massive floods but none were global.
This is hardly no evidence because in acknowledging the several massive but non global floods, they still point out there is evidence. But now the differences of how this evidence is interpreted, needs to be compared to other data that will help to find out which interpretation is correct.
And since there are historical records of ancient civilizations that testify to the Global flood and the Ark then this adds weight that the Global flood actually occurred.
But there are no such ancient records testifying that evolution ever happened.
The only historical records claiming evolution begin only recently. And there still is still no record of any one saying they witnessed any evolutionary process taking place in any of the different kinds of life forms.UpvoteReplyRobert Devor·March 1, 2020
Creationists built one in Kentucky for millions of dollars, took several years, along with construction and engineering firms massive input. Well, they built a facade of one side which shortly afterwards began to leak! 😳🙄