Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

BilliardsBall said:

Why the rush to judgment? I've read and continue to read papers and articles on both sides. That is the very definition of open-minded.

Click to expand...

Just reading both sides of a issue is not remotely what open minded means.

nPeace said:

Exactly. Millions of years that never happened.


The evidence supports special creation - without any doubt.

Click to expand...

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo.

nPeace said:

Many people have had a good education without higher education.
There are persons who have had a secondary level education, that have a great IQ, or understanding.

Click to expand...

True! So what?

BilliardsBall said:

Most of the forum trolls are "not providing valid information" and others (excepting you here, sir) are providing canards I've refuted in the past or in hundreds of posts here.

There are compelling threads of evidence that point toward a universal Flood.

Click to expand...

This is a very good reference that explains the evidence that is best related to the Biblical flood. Yes there are references in many different cultures of local catastrophic floods throughout human history all the way up to local catastrophic floods today.

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

Scientific Evidence Against a Whole-Earth Flood

The Bible says that the rains that created the Noachian Flood lasted for 40 days (Genesis 7:17), that the waters prevailed on the earth for 150 days (Genesis 7:24), and after these 150 days the waters gradually receded from the earth so that by the seventh month and the seventeenth day, Noah's Ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). A year plus two months and twenty-seven days later the earth was dry enough so that Noah,his family, and the load of animals could disembark from the Ark (Genesis 8:14).

Because this flood was intended by God to destroy all flesh on earth (Genesis 6:13) and because sedimentary rocks on all continents contain fossils that supposedly represent the "destroyed flesh of all life," it might be thought that the Bible story, describing a wholeearth flood, was true. However, interlayered with these fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks on all continents are layers of evaporite rock salt (sodium chloride), gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), anhydrite (calcium sulfate), and various potash and magnesium salts, which are associated with red beds (shales) containing fossilized mud cracks (Schreiber and others 2007).

Many of these mineral compounds and red beds have combined thicknesses on different continents of more than one kilometer (~3,281 feet) (Collins 2006). The red beds are red because they contain red hematite (iron oxide) which formed from magnetite grains that were oxidized while the muds were exposed to oxygen in open air. The mud cracks can form only under drying conditions that cause the mud to shrink and form polygonal cracks. The evaporite mineral compounds in the layers are deposited in the correct chemical order predicted by the solubility of each kind of ion in these compounds and whose increasing concentrations during the evaporation of water would cause them to precipitate in a predictable depositional sequence as the water volume decreased. Such evaporite deposits would be expected to occur where a marine sea was once present and to disappear when the sea became completely dry. Therefore, one could expect these evaporites to be at the top of the supposed Noachian Flood deposits when the water supposedly receded and the land dried out, but certainly not in different levels in between older and younger fossiliferous "Flood deposits".

We read in the Bible that there is only one time in which the Flood waters are said to recede and leave the earth dry. That is, no multiple worldwide climatic conditions are described in which flooding, then drying to a dry earth, more flooding, more drying to a dry earth, in repeated cycles that occur over and over again in that Flood year. On that basis, it is logical that all the kinds of evaporite deposits and red beds in many different levels in the supposed Noachian Flood deposits could form only in local climates with desert drying-conditions and could not possibly have formed all at the same time — a time when a flood covered the whole earth for more than one year (Collins 2006). On that basis, the Noachian Flood story cannot describe a whole-earth flood, but it could only represent a large regional flood.

Regional Evidence for the Noachian and Similar Floods

Two rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris flow through Mesopotamia, which is now the country of Iraq (Figure 1). There are several layers in exposed rocks near these two rivers in southeastern Mesopotamia (Iraq) that are likely flood deposits. Most are about a foot (0.3 m) thick, but one is as much as 3 meters thick (MacDonald 1988). Flood debris from this same thick deposit along the Euphrates River near the ancient Sumerian city of Shuruppak about 200 km southeast of Baghdad has been dated by the C14 method, giving an age of 2900 BCE (Best nd). Flood deposits 2.4 meters feet thick are also reported by MacDonald (1988) as far northeast as the ancient Babylonian city of Kish (120 km south of Baghdad). At any rate, the many flood-deposit layers show that flooding in southeastern Mesopotamia was not unusual in ancient times.

sayak83 said:

What do you wish to know about the theory of evolution?

Click to expand...

Now that you asked...
Have you or anyone ever observed evolution above the species level?
If not, what reason(s) caused you to believe and have faith that it happened/happens/can happen?
If you don't mind, could you do more than just say, "There is overwhelming evidence for it". Rather, could you specifically mention what evidence convinces you?
Thanks.

nPeace said:

Now that you asked...
Have you or anyone ever observed evolution above the species level?
If not, what reason(s) caused you to believe and have faith that it happened/happens/can happen?
If you don't mind, could you do more than just say, "There is overwhelming evidence for it". Rather, could you specifically mention what evidence convinces you?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Speciation has been observed. Is that what you mean by evolution above species level?

Here is speciation in a virus within one month in a flask.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html

Plant speciation has also been observed in less than a century.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

In vertebrates as well, a new species of finch has been observed to emerge in Galapagos,
New species evolve in just two generations | Cosmos
A team of researchers led by Leif Andersson from Uppsala University, in Sweden, report the emergence of a new species of finch, dubbed Big Bird, arising from an initial cross breeding between two species, the large cactus finch (Geospiza conirostris) and the medium ground finch (Geospiz fortis). From a first chance encounter, a new lineage which boasts a unique beak shape, unique vocalisations, and the inability to breed with other finch species emerged.

The Big Bird today comprises only about 30 individuals – all fiercely inbred, but meeting the definition of distinct species, nonetheless.

The case study is watertight because the set-up for the foundation mating between the two originator species was observed by a pair of scientists from Princeton University, who were visiting the Galapagos island of Daphne Major at the time.

The Grants, having taken an initial blood sample from the outsider, continued to monitor the little population of Big Birds, taking blood from the subsequent six generations.

Now, Andersson and his colleagues from Uppsala have analysed the DNA collected from each of those generations. They conclude that the Big Birds quickly developed unique structural characteristics with which they were able to forge an entirely new environmental niche that did not put them in competition with the more numerous resident finch species.

“It is very striking that when we compare the size and shape of the Big Bird beaks with the beak morphologies of the other three species inhabiting Daphne Major, the Big Birds occupy their own niche in the beak morphology space,” says co-author Sangeet Lamichhaney.

“Thus, the combination of gene variants contributed from the two interbreeding species in combination with natural selection led to the evolution of a beak morphology that was competitive and unique.”


So speciation happens, and evolution within species (adaptation) has been known to happen for a very long time. And that, concisely, is all that constitutes the theory of evolution.

nPeace said:

Now that you asked...
Have you or anyone ever observed evolution above the species level?
If not, what reason(s) caused you to believe and have faith that it happened/happens/can happen?
If you don't mind, could you do more than just say, "There is overwhelming evidence for it". Rather, could you specifically mention what evidence convinces you?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

The cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria in Africa. Rapid radiation of endemic species and genera over a period of approximately 15,000 years from a few ancestral species. New genera that did not exist prior to the formation of the lake. The evidence for macro-evolution exists. But don't tell me, let me guess, "but they're still fish".

This superflock is approximately 700 species in several genera (above the species level), the majority of which, exist nowhere else in the world.

PS A global flood could not have put them there and nowhere else, since these could survive in other African lakes or even in lakes on other continents. They are not in those other places, because they cannot and could not get to those places from where they are. Cichlids and other fish would not survive a high salt, high suspended solids environment that would exist if the world were rapidly flooded. What tremendously efficient evidence. It supports macro-evolution and rejects a global flood all in one. It would only work if one ignores important points against fish survival in such a flood and provides the flood with the unheard of ability of being highly selective and specific in how anything carried in its waters is distributed. Unnaturally and improbably selective and specific on a global scale.

Windwalker said:

Exactly correct. Only fools despise wisdom and discipline. Education, knowledge, awareness, all of which come through discipline, along with experience and humility is what makes one understand the ways of Wisdom. Despising knowledge, denying education and understanding, is what makes one not on that path. One honors God by honoring the mind.

Click to expand...

So I also believe the wisdom you speak of is utter foolishness.
(1 Corinthians 3:19) . . .For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. . .

Why is it foolishness?
(1 Corinthians 3:20) . . .Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.. . .

It's futile, because it is really not wisdom at all.
It puffs up, making one feel superior, or better than another, just because they went to a particular school, or achieved a level of learning, or received a certificate with a certain degree.

That's why we have the saying, "Knowledge puffs up; Love builds up".
Interestingly, this is the same kind of situation that existed for centuries. The people that were known to have not attended the schools, were looked down upon - even Christ himself.
(John 7:15) . . .And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?. . .

Jesus needed no schooling to understand God's word.
(John 7:16) . . .Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me.

Neither did / does his followers.
(Acts 4:13) . . .Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus;
2 Corinthians 3:1-3

*** nwtsty Acts Study Notes—Chapter 4 ***
uneducated: Or “unlettered.” While the Greek term used here (a·gramʹma·tos) can mean illiterate, in this context it likely refers to those not educated in rabbinic schools. It appears that most Jews in the first century could read and write, in part because many schools were held in synagogues. Like Jesus, though, Peter and John had not studied at the rabbinic schools. (Compare John 7:15.) The religious elite in Jesus’ day felt that these schools were the only acceptable places for receiving a religious education. The Sadducees and the Pharisees no doubt felt that Peter and John were unqualified to teach or to expound the Law to the people. In addition, both of these disciples came from Galilee—an area where most people were farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. The religious leaders and others from Jerusalem and Judea apparently looked down on people from that region and viewed Peter and John as “uneducated” and “ordinary.” (John 7:45-52; Acts 2:7) God did not view them that way. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 6; James 2:5) Before his death, Jesus had educated and trained them and his other disciples extensively. (Matthew 10:1-42; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 8:1; 9:1-5; 10:1-42; 11:52) After his resurrection, he continued to teach his disciples by means of holy spirit.—John 14:26; 16:13; 1 John 2:27.

Even persons who have had higher learning has recognized the truthfulness of these words...
(James 3:17) . . .But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical.

So that they believe, even the lowliest individual - a child, can understand God's word, and teach the highly educated.
This I have seen on a regular basis.

The wisdom from above has proved superior in my life, and millions of others.

sayak83 said:

Speciation has been observed. Is that what you mean by evolution above species level?

Here is speciation in a virus within one month in a flask.
https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html

Plant speciation has also been observed in less than a century.
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

How did this happen? It turns out that the parental plants made mistakes when they created their gametes (analogous to our sperm and eggs). Instead of making gametes with only one copy of each chromosome, they created ones with two or more, a state called polyploidy. Two polyploid gametes from different species, each with double the genetic information they were supposed to have, fused, and created a tetraploid: an creature with 4 sets of chromosomes. Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

In vertebrates as well, a new species of finch has been observed to emerge in Galapagos,
New species evolve in just two generations | Cosmos
A team of researchers led by Leif Andersson from Uppsala University, in Sweden, report the emergence of a new species of finch, dubbed Big Bird, arising from an initial cross breeding between two species, the large cactus finch (Geospiza conirostris) and the medium ground finch (Geospiz fortis). From a first chance encounter, a new lineage which boasts a unique beak shape, unique vocalisations, and the inability to breed with other finch species emerged.

The Big Bird today comprises only about 30 individuals – all fiercely inbred, but meeting the definition of distinct species, nonetheless.

The case study is watertight because the set-up for the foundation mating between the two originator species was observed by a pair of scientists from Princeton University, who were visiting the Galapagos island of Daphne Major at the time.

The Grants, having taken an initial blood sample from the outsider, continued to monitor the little population of Big Birds, taking blood from the subsequent six generations.

Now, Andersson and his colleagues from Uppsala have analysed the DNA collected from each of those generations. They conclude that the Big Birds quickly developed unique structural characteristics with which they were able to forge an entirely new environmental niche that did not put them in competition with the more numerous resident finch species.

“It is very striking that when we compare the size and shape of the Big Bird beaks with the beak morphologies of the other three species inhabiting Daphne Major, the Big Birds occupy their own niche in the beak morphology space,” says co-author Sangeet Lamichhaney.

“Thus, the combination of gene variants contributed from the two interbreeding species in combination with natural selection led to the evolution of a beak morphology that was competitive and unique.”


So speciation happens, and evolution within species (adaptation) has been known to happen for a very long time. And that, concisely, is all that constitutes the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

I know of unusual examples of single gene speciation, but speciation is an example of evolution that is also on the macro-evolution scale. The only criteria creationist seem to use in claiming it is not, is based on the useless concept of 'kind'.

Where I live, there is Hyla complex of two species of tree frog, one being a tetraploid species derived from the other through ploidy. There are difference in the call and the inability to interbreed, but other than that, external morphology is practically indistinguishable. They even overlap in numerous areas of their ranges.

Subduction Zone said:

This is not true. And as I have pointed out you keep confirming that you do not understand the nature of evidence. That is why I offered to go over the basics of science. Why did you bail on that conversation?

Click to expand...

No, it is true.
Try again.

Subduction Zone said:

So do you admit that it never happened? If not then we are not "pased that".

Click to expand...

Oh yes we did pass it, by my showing that geology can only hypothesize, and then form theories. They have not shown, confirmed, or proven anything.
Genesis does not need to fight with ideas, and assumptions.

nPeace said:

So I also believe the wisdom you speak of is utter foolishness.
(1 Corinthians 3:19) . . .For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. . .

Why is it foolishness?
(1 Corinthians 3:20) . . .Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.. . .

It's futile, because it is really not wisdom at all.
It puffs up, making one feel superior, or better than another, just because they went to a particular school, or achieved a level of learning, or received a certificate with a certain degree.

That's why we have the saying, "Knowledge puffs up; Love builds up".
Interestingly, this is the same kind of situation that existed for centuries. The people that were known to have not attended the schools, were looked down upon - even Christ himself.
(John 7:15) . . .And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?. . .

Jesus needed no schooling to understand God's word.
(John 7:16) . . .Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me.

Neither did / does his followers.
(Acts 4:13) . . .Now when they beheld the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were men unlettered and ordinary, they got to wondering. And they began to recognize about them that they used to be with Jesus;
2 Corinthians 3:1-3

*** nwtsty Acts Study Notes—Chapter 4 ***
uneducated: Or “unlettered.” While the Greek term used here (a·gramʹma·tos) can mean illiterate, in this context it likely refers to those not educated in rabbinic schools. It appears that most Jews in the first century could read and write, in part because many schools were held in synagogues. Like Jesus, though, Peter and John had not studied at the rabbinic schools. (Compare John 7:15.) The religious elite in Jesus’ day felt that these schools were the only acceptable places for receiving a religious education. The Sadducees and the Pharisees no doubt felt that Peter and John were unqualified to teach or to expound the Law to the people. In addition, both of these disciples came from Galilee—an area where most people were farmers, shepherds, and fishermen. The religious leaders and others from Jerusalem and Judea apparently looked down on people from that region and viewed Peter and John as “uneducated” and “ordinary.” (John 7:45-52; Acts 2:7) God did not view them that way. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 6; James 2:5) Before his death, Jesus had educated and trained them and his other disciples extensively. (Matthew 10:1-42; Mark 6:7-13; Luke 8:1; 9:1-5; 10:1-42; 11:52) After his resurrection, he continued to teach his disciples by means of holy spirit.—John 14:26; 16:13; 1 John 2:27.

Even persons who have had higher learning has recognized the truthfulness of these words...
(James 3:17) . . .But the wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, not hypocritical.

So that they believe, even the lowliest individual - a child, can understand God's word, and teach the highly educated.
This I have seen on a regular basis.

The wisdom from above has proved superior in my life, and millions of others.

Click to expand...

I know JW`s are not the only religious group to interpret the Bible to denigrate education, intelligence and God's gifts of reasoning and observation, bur few do it with such passion and fervor.

nPeace said:

No, it is true.
Try again.


Oh yes we did pass it, by my showing that geology can only hypothesize, and then form theories. They have not shown, confirmed, or proven anything.
Genesis does not need to fight with ideas, and assumptions.

Click to expand...

So you are just going to throw out reason, intellect and evidence, and even the appearance of those things, and just go with unsupported belief as fact by declaration. I did not see that coming.

viole said:

I am sorry to break it here for you, but common descent has so much evidence as the earth not being flat. In fact, nobody sane is looking for independent origins of life on the same planet using the phenotypes we have today. That would be frankly ridiculous. Therefore, it is established science.

You define science arbitrarily so that it always agrees with the Bible. Then it is obvious that your definition will always agree. Mmh, this part is not in Scriptures...must be bad science, lol.

But that is easy. I could also redefine science and evidence so that it agrees with basically everything.

It looks pointless, and I not sure how intellectually honest that would be, though.

Ciao

- viole

Click to expand...

No, that is not what is happening here.
Show me please, how evolution above the species level has been shown to be a theory using the scientific method.

nPeace said:

No, that is not what is happening here.
Show me please, how evolution above the species level has been shown to be a theory using the scientific method.

Click to expand...

Show us all that you have a level of understanding of science, logic and reason where you can objectively review and understand anything scientific that others might present. So far, I have not seen it.

nPeace said:

No, that is not what is happening here.
Show me please, how evolution above the species level has been shown to be a theory using the scientific method.

Click to expand...

What she describes about how you are manipulating and twisting the definition of science so that it always agrees with your beliefs is exactly what you are doing. That is bad science. It is also neither wise, moral or following the teaching of the Bible. How ironic.

nPeace said:

No, it is true.
Try again.

Click to expand...

Wrong, it is a lie to claim that we rely on faith. You do not understand the concept of evidence and appear to be afraid to learn. Why is that?

Oh yes we did pass it, by my showing that geology can only hypothesize, and then form theories. They have not shown, confirmed, or proven anything.
Genesis does not need to fight with ideas, and assumptions.

Click to expand...

Again, that is wrong. When you attempt to degrade theories you only demonstrate a complete ignorance of science. You cannot refute that which you do not understand. So instead of repeating falsehoods why not learn the basics of science? It will not take that long. You have already wasted far more time running away that it would take for you to learn the basics.


Of course even creationists appear to know that if they understood the basics of science that they would have to consciously lie about the science that they do not understand. I am pretty sure that @nPeace knows that he is wrong. He just does not know what he is wrong and not learning is his only tool that he can use to give himself plausible deniability. Why not prove me wrong? Why not learn the basics?

nPeace said:

No, that is not what is happening here.
Show me please, how evolution above the species level has been shown to be a theory using the scientific method.

Click to expand...

But you do not understand the scientific method and the concept of evidence. You would not be able to judge correctly if that was done for you.

Dan From Smithville said:

I hardly thought there was a need for this, since there is no evidence to support a claim that science and Genesis are in harmony. If there were any evidence, you would have provided it in such a list as I did. You never did.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It tells me nothing. It is a list. A record, records an event and these are not events supported by any evidence. It is not even an accurate list. Your statement does not explain the out of step order.

This is your major problem. You have not got the first clue how systematicists and taxonomists establish a phylogeny. Relationships among organisms is not opinion. They are hypotheses that are tested. They include all the known specimens for the group or groups of interest and outgroups (known specimens not closely related) are included. Successful tests result in a phylogeny based on the evidence. I cannot speak for the entire field outside of insects, but traditionally, much of the hypotheses were based on the morphological data from insects, but more recent work with molecular data has shown the older morphological work was very sound and a significant portion of it has held up.

Opinions. That is a good one. LOL! Maybe if you spent some time learning what scientists do you would not have to construct easily refuted straw man arguments to support your claims.

Click to expand...

Can you give me what you consider your best example of "Successful tests result in a phylogeny based on the evidence", please.

Dan From Smithville said:

Based on what I have seen of your knowledge of science, there is no way that you have the ability to make this determination. It is contrived out of a desire that what you believe takes precedence over what can be demonstrated.

The conclusion of relationships and descent are arrived at through a proper use of the scientific method and are good science. Testing is done using validated techniques with data on morphology, ecology, genetics and molecular biology. You have not demonstrated that they are otherwise. You have not demonstrated an ability to even make the attempt.

Click to expand...

I can't fight what has been established by consensus, in the same way that thousands of scientist opposed to the method of establishment of the theory can't.
However, it does not mean that these tests and "observations" were in keeping with good science.
We still disagree, and I still see no conflict between the Genesis account and good science, since the speculations regarding large scale evolution is nothing more than faith in the theory.

Dan From Smithville said:

Then you must never have read Genesis.

Click to expand...

Negative. I have not only read Genesis, but I have studied it. I suggest you have only dione the former.

Dan From Smithville said:

There is no evidence that supports the occurrence of a global flood during the last 20,000,000 years. This is just your attempt to deny this fact and continue to consider what you believe is facts, when it is just what you believe. Following the evidence and the lack of expected evidence leads to the "No Flood Conclusion". It does not lead anywhere else.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you can tell me you know what did and did not happen within the last twenty million years... with certainty.
Then you must also be able to tell me with certainty the entire history of the earth - including what exactly happened to the dinosaurs.
Can you?

Dan From Smithville said:

I do not know what the myth of evolution is? Is that the creationist belief that there is no evolution? It must be, since they can neither refute the theory nor address the fact of it in any rational way.

Click to expand...

The myth of evolution is simply the story created to explain the diversity of life on earth, by using simple everyday processes seen today (reproduction, adaptation, speciation), along with assumption made about similarity in features and traits in the living and dead, and then extrapolating that.

The theory has been long refuted, by the Cambrian, and other evidence, which destroyed the slow process evolution, resulting in die hard supporters of the theory to create a number of hypothetical to adjust the theory to fit the evidence - instead of going where the evidence led.

This is not a creationist agenda. You lost scientists and atheist both, who saw problems with a "theory in crisis".
Many evolutionists and atheist - not Creationists, saw the reality of the situation.

Dan From Smithville said:

Yes. I know. You were careful to include your version of "good science", but the real version of good science includes the theory of evolution that is the most well-supported, well-worked out theory in all of science. It is the foundation of modern biology. All you are doing is rejecting good science and claiming that your repetition of rejection is an argument.

Click to expand...

Many biologist work without evolution. Evolution theory is new, not biology.
That's just another way of taking facts, and trying to prop up a theory.
It's rejected by many, and will continue to be, regardless of who props it up, and calls it well established.

Gay marriage is well established too.

Dan From Smithville said:

It conflicts with a literal interpretation, but in order for it to even be considered to match, the text has to be filtered through an interpretation. Sure. Day/Age creationists have done this. It is hardly compelling evidence of harmony. It is meaningless, considering how out of harmony Genesis and science are.


It is the underlying creationist assumption that drives this obsessive need to continually make silly claims about science and the Bible. It is absurd, but it does not seem to give creationists pause to do a little critical thinking about their own ideas.

Good science is not science that agrees with your beliefs. Bad science is not science that disagrees with your beliefs. You have already been given some excellent and real definitions of those terms by others. Science is following the evidence. You want the evidence to follow what you believe. You are committed to using bad science.

Genesis and science are not in harmony. Science contradicts the claims of Genesis and only in a few areas can vast interpretation bring a few parts of Genesis anywhere close to aligning with science. I will note that it is those that are trying to make Genesis a fact that must change their interpretation to match science.

Click to expand...

No, that is not the case.
There is good reason for not putting faith in a theory - such as you have done - which is not based on supportive evidence, but more so speculation... simply to support a idea formed a little over 150 years ago.
As I stated before, both Evolutionist and Atheist have left that faith.

nPeace said:

Negative. I have not only read Genesis, but I have studied it. I suggest you have only dione the former.

Click to expand...

If you had done that you would understand where it says that plants were made before the Sun and Moon. I even posted those verses for you earlier. I think that you may be conflating "making excuses for" with "studied".

Dan From Smithville said:

I think he is just extolling the value of an education and how it helps to understand complex issues. Ignorance leaves people susceptible to accepting wild, unsupported claims or believing that they know something, when all they really have is belief that is, much more often than not, incorrect.

Click to expand...

You probably would include Jesus and his apostles in that.
The reason Jesus' disciples understood and did things Jesus did, is because they were taught by him - they learned by his teachings and example.
Today, I have seen people become electricians, and artisans without going to any school.
How did they learn? Simply by being with, and learning from their fellow brothers in the faith... and by putting it into practice.
These are persons between teen years, and past middle age - many of whom had little education. They are so skilled, their work receives high praise.

Hey, what do you know... Look how Paul viewed it.
Philippians 3:8
What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ

Paul, you ignorant man you.
No, like many today, young and old, they use their common sense, and appreciate the value of God's word, the Bible... unlike some.