Irony of the evolutionary belief

[ElishaElijah]

@shunyadragon Just in case you dismissed the whole paper and didn’t read it. Here is the conclusion.

Conclusion​

The ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood.

In summary, the ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood. Either microbes have travelled short distances for extremely long amounts of time (which is highly unlikely due to the numerous problems associated with global distance transport) or they have travelled extremely long distances in short periods of time. It is ultimately a matter of faith as to which perspective is true. The presence of microbes everywhere has never been given a mechanistic explanation from a secular perspective and the best explanation given is in terms of Noah’s Flood. For every step we take, the microbial kind is everywhere and should cause us to pause and remember that there was a global Flood. In particular, every time before it rains can be a reminder that God judged the world with water because of the geosmin smell we experience anywhere on the globe. We can smell the evidence of a global Flood just before God sends a rainbow to remind us that He will never use water again to judge the earth (Genesis 9:11,13). Biblical creationists can have confidence in the biblical account because the bacterial kind is everywhere. So now we can say that there are trillions of living things, contained in soil layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

 

[Valjean]

It’s science so it’s like play time, theory, ever changing, interpretation and proves nothing.
You’re not even sure, yet you base your eternal destiny on it.

He follows the evidence.
Eternal destiny? Do you live in a fantasy world and see everything through that perspective?

What is your objection to radiometric dating, and do you see no problem with Pascal's wager?

 

[Valjean]

You may not like it but I do because Jesus Christ also says this and knew that there was a global flood but won’t be again, it will be fire this time.

”For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24‬:‭38‬-‭44‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

So according to Matthew 24 I will be ready when Jesus Christ returns, because I’m going to do what He says.

Why do you subscribe to this unevidenced fantasy, when there is so much actual evidence contradicting it?

 

[F1fan]

@shunyadragon Just in case you dismissed the whole paper and didn’t read it. Here is the conclusion.

Conclusion​

In summary, the ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood.

But there never was a global flood.

One poorly judged piece of evidence doesn't justify a conclusion that is debunked by a massive amount of contrary evidence. Your flawed interpretation of Genesis can't be supported.

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon Just in case you dismissed the whole paper and didn’t read it. Here is the conclusion.

Conclusion​

In summary, the ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood. Either microbes have travelled short distances for extremely long amounts of time (which is highly unlikely due to the numerous problems associated with global distance transport) or they have travelled extremely long distances in short periods of time. It is ultimately a matter of faith as to which perspective is true. The presence of microbes everywhere has never been given a mechanistic explanation from a secular perspective and the best explanation given is in terms of Noah’s Flood. For every step we take, the microbial kind is everywhere and should cause us to pause and remember that there was a global Flood. In particular, every time before it rains can be a reminder that God judged the world with water because of the geosmin smell we experience anywhere on the globe. We can smell the evidence of a global Flood just before God sends a rainbow to remind us that He will never use water again to judge the earth (Genesis 9:11,13). Biblical creationists can have confidence in the biblical account because the bacterial kind is everywhere. So now we can say that there are trillions of living things, contained in soil layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

I read the Conclusion still the paper is bogus to the point of ridiculous. The history of microbes as ubiquitous simply a product of a natural history of the earth Microbes do not travel they spread over time by reproduction over a long period of time given a suitable environment. They can also spread in the currents of the ocean and wind. No problem with an earth billions of years old. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Actually no need for a long period of time the spread of microbes of millions of species and varieties spread continuously by many means naturally as described. Also on and in animals.

​

 

[AdamjEdgar]

One poorly judged piece of evidence doesn't justify a conclusion that is debunked by a massive amount of contrary evidence. Your flawed interpretation of Genesis can't be supported.

that isnt really a good point. The reality is, like in courts of law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.
Now given that the human fossil record for example, is highly stacked in favour of the Evolutionary model (those fossils that support the creation story are left out of the equation), when one also considers a huge amount of historical evidence that also supports the biblical creation model, i would argue that increasingly the odds are turning away from evolution.

There is very strong evidence now that homo erectus, neanderthals, and modern humans not only coexisted but also inbred.I think that this causes enormous problems for the entire evolution timeline in terms of human ancestry (let alone similar problems with other evidences that supposedly support to the theory).

One excellent source of information is "Bones of Contention" by Lubenov. It highlights significant problems and these are ongoing.

 

[F1fan]

that isnt really a good point. The reality is, like in courts of law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.

Actually it is crucial, and is what law is based on: the preponderance of the evidence. The same goes with science, as its conclusions follow the facts and data. None of the facts and data supports the absurd literalist interpretation of Genesis.

Now given that the human fossil record for example, is highly stacked in favour of the Evolutionary model (those fossils that support the creation story are left out of the equation),

There are no fossils that support creationism.

i would argue that when one also considers a huge amount of historical evidence that also supports the biblical creation model, i would argue that increasingly the odds are turning away from evolution.

Claims, yet no evidence that would back them up.

There is very strong evidence now that homo erectus, neanderthals, and modern humans not only coexisted but also inbred.I think that this causes enormous problems for the entire evolution timeline in terms of human ancestry (let alone similar problems with other evidences that supposedly support to the theory).

Enormous problems is inaccurate. Those educated in science understand that the conclusions change over time as more data is collected. That is the point, that there is no final answer in science like religious claims for their dogma. But science becomes more accurate over time.

One excellent source of information is "Bones of Contention" by Lubenov. It highlights significant problems and these are ongoing.

Only reputable sources by respected experts are acceptable.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

The same goes with science, as its conclusions follow the facts and data. None of the facts and data supports the absurd literalist interpretation of Genesis.

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades. The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades. There are even a number of well known non christian scientists now who do not agree with the darwinian model.

Id suggest you purchase Lubenovs book and actually read it in its entirety. You will be very surprised with what you find out about the real story regarding the fossil record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades. The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades. There are even a number of well known non christian scientists now who do not agree with the darwinian model.

Id suggest you purchase Lubenovs book and actually read it in its entirety. You will be very surprised with what you find out about the real story regarding the fossil record.

It seriously has not. It is too bad that you have no understanding of the sciences. You may not like me, but I would politely go over the basics of science so that you can see that there is no scientific evidence for creationism. By the way, I am not the only one that says that. Creationists lose court case after court case because they can never present any reliable evidence for their claims.

And the standard for scientific arguments is of course scientific evidence. The concept of scientific evidence is very well defined. Its definition is very rational. Creationists hate it because of that.

 

[F1fan]

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades.

Creationism is baseless, and little more than deliberate fraud. There is no science that gives anyone the impression that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true. Look for yourself, you offer no credible sources, and no evidence.

The truth is that creationists have no chance in these debates. The educated just have to cite experts in science. The creationists cite their religious disinformation. Just get your science right.

The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades. There are even a number of well known non christian scientists now who do not agree with the darwinian model.

This is a bluff. Another baseless claim. Not a shred of evidence.

Id suggest you purchase Lubenovs book and actually read it in its entirety. You will be very surprised with what you find out about the real story regarding the fossil record.

I have plenty of valid science to defer to. I suggest you study valid science, too, if you want to be informed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Creationism is baseless, and little more than deliberate fraud. There is no science that gives anyone the impression that a literal interpretation of Genesis is true. Look for yourself, you offer no credible sources, and no evidence.

The truth is that creationists have no chance in these debates. The educated just have to cite experts in science. The creationists cite their religious disinformation. Just get your science right.

This is a bluff. Another baseless claim. Not a shred of evidence.

I have plenty of valid science to defer to. I suggest you study valid science, too, if you want to be informed.

Creationists often mistake progress for rejection. Please note that he said "darwinian model". The Darwinian model was replaced over a hundred years ago when genetics were incorporated. About 1900. Often called neo-Darwinian evolution. Then came the modern synthesis. And now due to recent discoveries like epigenetics and others some are saying that it is time for a new model. But.none of them are denying that evolution is a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who ever said we had to?

Scientific methodology 101.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except science doesn’t prove things

He didn't say otherwise. In fact, he didn't even use the words "proof" or "prove" or any variation of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you figured how deep you need to drill for the billions of years old scenario you got? You probably be at the core. Don’t think that works, I think my timeline is a lot closer even by your method.
Yeah, you would think there would be some trees about 500,000 years old someplace in the billions of years scenario, yet the living things we got and the world we live in still look like Genesis 1.

We actually do have plenty of trees as old as some 300 million years.

We call them "coal" today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did respond to that but you must’ve missed it.
You say 150k years old which is a far cry from billions. It doesn’t even phase me because it’s all speculation and of course as science goes, it’s subject to change, and proves nothing.
Genesis 1 wins again, God check mates you every time. In the end the Word of God always proves to be true.

Yes, the age of the earth as determined by science has changed over the centuries.

However, in case you didn't notice, every time it changed, it was because we found out every time that it was even older that we believed.

This is because we kept finding new evidence that kept pushing the date back and back and back.

If you think that the idea of "science keeps changing" (which is to say: science keeps making progress) means that one day, after having the age of the earth pushed back over the centuries to about 4.5 billion years, evidence is going to surface to bring it back to just a couple thousand years, you are simply delusional.


It's like trying to find the deepest point of the ocean. You keep finding deeper and deeper points as time goes on and you keep looking.
The "deepest point" keeps changing. But it's kind of one directional. If it changes, it's because we found an even deeper point then what we thought was the deepest point.

It's not going to change into "ow, in fact, the deepest point is just 5 meters actually..."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re off by billions and we live in a world right now in the present that is described in Genesis 1.
The global flood evidence is on top of the mountains too:

Living Evidence: Microbial Biogeography & Noah’s Flood

The biblical account of Noah’s Flood provides an update to modern microbial biogeography and modern creation apologetics.

answersresearchjournal.org

lol

Newsflash: mountains grow. What are mountain tops today, were the bottoms of seas millions of years ago.
Those marine fossils you found on mountains, aren't just from a few millenia ago...................................


Regardles of what pseudo-scientific dishonest religious propaganda sources say.

Are you positive on 150k or billions?

Are you being this dishonest on purpose?

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Undisturbed 150k worth of winter/summer cycles in layers of snow-ice or varves or what-have-you, disprove a biblical flood.

These are two seperate points.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s science so it’s like play time, theory, ever changing, interpretation and proves nothing.

Ow sure.... Just like relativity. I guess that's why your GPS works. Just a coincidence.

 

[Valjean]

that isnt really a good point. The reality is, like in courts of law, there is such a thing as reasonable doubt.
Now given that the human fossil record for example, is highly stacked in favour of the Evolutionary model (those fossils that support the creation story are left out of the equation), when one also considers a huge amount of historical evidence that also supports the biblical creation model, i would argue that increasingly the odds are turning away from evolution.

There is no fossil evidence supporting the creation model. Things don't just pop into existence ex nihilo. Evolution is an ongoing process going back millions of years.
Please explain what you're talking about.

Historical evidence? Of what aspect of the Biblical account?

There is very strong evidence now that homo erectus, neanderthals, and modern humans not only coexisted but also inbred.I think that this causes enormous problems for the entire evolution timeline in terms of human ancestry (let alone similar problems with other evidences that supposedly support to the theory).

neanderthalensis yes. erectus -- links, please.

What timeline problems would this cause? When several related species coexist in a region, interbreeding shouldn't surprise anyone. In some parts of the US, for example, dogs, coyotes and wolves are known to interbreed. So what?

One excellent source of information is "Bones of Contention" by Lubenov. It highlights significant problems and these are ongoing.

Review: Bones of Contention

 

[Valjean]

The claim that none of the data supports a literal interpretation of Genesis...that is simply wrong and it has been shown wrong on many occasions for decades. The amount of evidence proving that is wrong is on the rise and its gained significant weight, particularly in the last 3 decades. There are even a number of well known non christian scientists now who do not agree with the darwinian model.

What does the "Darwinian model," (natural selection?) have to do with Genesis? I don't recall Genesis talking about reproductive variation or heritable traits increasing in populations.

Please cite some examples of 'what has been shown wrong for decades'. I'm skeptical.

Id suggest you purchase Lubenovs book and actually read it in its entirety. You will be very surprised with what you find out about the real story regarding the fossil record.

Lubenov's a young-Earth creationist and Biblical apologist. He's read a lot of biology, but fails to accept some of its basic principles.
And his Young-Earth belief seems like it would make his belief that the whole panorama of life, change, and history even more untenable.

 

[sayak83]

@shunyadragon Just in case you dismissed the whole paper and didn’t read it. Here is the conclusion.

Conclusion​

In summary, the ubiquity of microbes on earth is living evidence that there was a global Flood. Either microbes have travelled short distances for extremely long amounts of time (which is highly unlikely due to the numerous problems associated with global distance transport) or they have travelled extremely long distances in short periods of time. It is ultimately a matter of faith as to which perspective is true. The presence of microbes everywhere has never been given a mechanistic explanation from a secular perspective and the best explanation given is in terms of Noah’s Flood. For every step we take, the microbial kind is everywhere and should cause us to pause and remember that there was a global Flood. In particular, every time before it rains can be a reminder that God judged the world with water because of the geosmin smell we experience anywhere on the globe. We can smell the evidence of a global Flood just before God sends a rainbow to remind us that He will never use water again to judge the earth (Genesis 9:11,13). Biblical creationists can have confidence in the biblical account because the bacterial kind is everywhere. So now we can say that there are trillions of living things, contained in soil layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.

Refuted. And thanks. Yet another bit of science I learned today spurred by another atrocious creationist claim.
How do microbes spread globally? A study clarifies how they travel from end to end of the world
The paper confirms that the atmosphere -specifically the free troposphere- acts as a highway for many microbes and emphasizes the mechanisms that facilitate it.

The work combines microbiology and the dynamics of the Earth system and emphasizes the importance of the intertropical convergence zone in the phenomenon.

In this area, above and below the equator, there are strong updrafts of warm air and the winds from the northern and southern hemispheres meet.

It is the key area for this massive dispersal of microorganisms through the atmosphere.

The process happens as follows: the strong ascending wind that occurs in this strip of the Earth sucks in large masses of aerosolized particles -- mainly marine, fire and desert dust.

Many microorganisms adhere to them and ascend to the free troposphere (their characteristics and adaptation mechanisms allow it). Once there, they can travel thousands of kilometers and disperse throughout the world.

They can do it thanks to the constant and long-range air currents that converge in the upper layers of upper air and the massive injection that occurs in the intertropical zone.