Evolution vs Creation

[dcentity2000]

There certainly WAS a very large flood - silt deposits and eye witness accounts both testify to that. The question is how large the flood actually was. Large enough to make the witnesses think the whole world was flooded.

I can't help but think that Noah was a farmer and that the Ark was a simple raft used to preserve his livestock.



Rich::

 

[toto2]

I don't know your religious beliefs...so this is not directed at you...but your post brings up a question I have.

I have heard lots of people say they can't believe the story of Noah's Ark b/c it would be impossible for all the animals to fit in the ark. Yet, some of this people believe the miracles of Jesus. I'm curious why one would believe one and not the other. The Bible is full of miraculous events. It just seems like if you believe one, you might as well believe them all.

There are alot of Jesus's miracles that today can be scientificaly explained. Sometings that were mricale 100 years ago are routine events today. When speaking about Jesus , were talking a bout an individual doing fantastic things , when we talk about about a boat containing all the animals ever created with the food...well , it could not even be done today with our technologies

 

[yearbook50]

Floods have been relatively common over time so I don't have a problem believing that such a thing happened. I read fairly recently that a "world-wide" flood would likely only pertain to a small area or the world as the people in that area saw it. Keep in mind that most ancient people had no idea what was out there but existed in a very small area.

Exactly. These are the same people that believed the world was flat. Gravity didn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth actually gives a good summary of the changes in views.

It was also once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything orbited around it. Then the sun became the center of the universe...then we learned about galaxies and more information about space.


With these narrowed views, the ancient cultures weren't aware of what was beyond their homeland. Thus a large flood that destroyed their homeland could have been viewed as a world wild one.

 

[tm67]

This is simple a false statement.

Faith is a wonderful thing. It stands along. It doesn't need evidence.

If you faith leads you to believe something that doesn't agree with science, fine. But that doesn't mean you have to try and tear down the science - especially if you need to misstate the science in order to attack it.

I totally agree that we should not misstate things or mislead, sorry if you thought that's what I was doing.

I was not aware I was misrepresenting anything, after all, the major evolutionary palaeontologists say exactly the same thing. That there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Here's a few quotes to show I'm not making things up or misstating the science.

Here goes...

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid."
Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution 1979

-----------------------------

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of palaeontology, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference."

Stephen J. Gould, Natural History Vol. 86

-----------------------------

When answering a question about the lack of evolutionary transitions in his book "Evolution" Dr. Colin Paterson, Snr. Paleontologist at the Natural History Museum, London wrote:

"There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Luther Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma

-----------------------------

I trust you can see that, taking these few quotes (there are many more) I have some evidence to back up my claim.

 

[Planogirl]

There certainly WAS a very large flood - silt deposits and eye witness accounts both testify to that. The question is how large the flood actually was. Large enough to make the witnesses think the whole world was flooded.

I can't help but think that Noah was a farmer and that the Ark was a simple raft used to preserve his livestock.



Rich::

I think that makes sense, a lot of sense. He might have saved his livestock and family and of course the story might have grown and grown as they do. Of course there's always miracles but how would the animals of South America get there for example? And how big would that boat have to be?

I find the idea of anyone building a boat strong enough to hold livestock for a while particularly in that area miraculous enough.

 

[Spidey7]

I believe that we all evolved from Monkeys. Oh but wait, where did the Monkeys come from you ask? Oh obviously the "big bang." Oh but there had to be "matter" in order to form the basis for the explosion the "big bang," where did the "matter" come from? Oh it just poof appeared one day by majic.

And how many explosions "big bang" have you ever seen that turns into a creation of life? Nice almost perfect human and animal bodies, a perfect eco system that involves everything from honey bee pollination, to water, oxygen, all a precise formula of things that are needed just as they appear in nature to support human/animal/plant life of every kind. Yeah it just all happened, with a big bang, yeah that makes sense.

Just as man evolved from monkeys I also think that cars evolved from tricycles, all by themselves, they just naturally started appearing and changing all by evolution. The Ferrari and Lamborghini are at the highest state of this tricycle/car evolutionary process.

 

[Master Gracy]

What I believe is pretty much what my religion teacher told us she believed,
I think the creation stories were thought up by the teachers and educated minds coming together and trying to explain how we came to be.
I dont take them as fact, it doesn't really bother me.

 

[salmoneous]

When speaking about Jesus , were talking a bout an individual doing fantastic things , when we talk about about a boat containing all the animals ever created with the food...well , it could not even be done today with our technologies

My favorite bit of non-Biblical philosophy:

Annoyed at the disturbance, Luke looks over at Artoo, who
is rocking urgently back and forth in front of him.
Artoo waddles closer to Luke, chirping wildly, then scoots
over the edge of the swamp. Catching on, Luke rushes to the
water's edge. The X-wing fighter has sunk, and only the tip of
its nose shows above the lake's surface.

LUKE: Oh, no. We'll never get it out now.

Yoda stamps his foot in irritation.

YODA: So certain are you. Always with you it cannot be done. Hear you
nothing that I say?

Luke looks uncertainly out at the ship.

LUKE: Master, moving stones around is one thing. This is totally
different.

YODA: No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn
what you have learned.

LUKE: (focusing, quietly) All right, I'll give it a try.

YODA: No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.

Once you accept the notion of the supernatural - and in particular a God who creates the universe - how can you put limits on His power?

 

[Laura]

I think that makes sense, a lot of sense. He might have saved his livestock and family and of course the story might have grown and grown as they do. Of course there's always miracles but how would the animals of South America get there for example? And how big would that boat have to be?

I find the idea of anyone building a boat strong enough to hold livestock for a while particularly in that area miraculous enough.

Or Australia? Why are no platypus or kangaroos to be found in the Middle East?

 

[kmbound]

With all due respect, you made the original claim. Why do you believe it to be true? Can you provide us the support that led you to believe it to be true?

It's much easier for you to show that it is true, than it is for me to prove the negative. Proving negatives is hard. But searching shows no support for your claim. There are many reports that lots of cultures have flood myths. But none claming that every society has a world-wide flood myth. Nor any claims that it's the only universal myth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Noahs-Flood,4835,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-Flood-Pack-The,5022,263.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/After-the-Flood,4462,224.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Flood-Geology,5539,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Pub...r-The-Genesis-Flood-the-Ice-Age,4757,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Pub...d-the-FloodWhats-the-Connection,4801,229.aspx

All resources available that will back my claim. I do not bother posting website information because there is way too much that is not true and it is not sufficient support for the claim. These resources are all done by well respected highly educated scientist that believe, support and advocate the truth of the flood and how it affected the world.

As for EVERY society - I would like to ammend that to read ALMOST EVERY - either way it still supports the original point that the story of a world wide flood touches the entire world and it is not limited to American Christianity or the Bible in and of itself.

 

[dcentity2000]

I think that makes sense, a lot of sense. He might have saved his livestock and family and of course the story might have grown and grown as they do. Of course there's always miracles but how would the animals of South America get there for example? And how big would that boat have to be?

I find the idea of anyone building a boat strong enough to hold livestock for a while particularly in that area miraculous enough.

It's intriguing. I like the idea of the story growing and evolving over time - legends are often born of simple events. By that token the duration of the flood could have been greater or lesser than the Biblical claim. Perhaps the "Ark" only had to stay afloat for a few days until a patch of land dried out. Perhaps the flood slowly ebbed thereafter. Who knows?



Rich::

 

[toto2]

We shouldn't be surprised that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible as such.
The word "dinosaur" was invented only about 150 years ago. So the actual word "dinosaur" will not be in the Bible. This does not mean the Bible is inaccurate in its' description of history or that God didn't know about dinosaurs - after all, cats aren't mentioned in the Bible either. "


But word like "homosexual" were invented in the the last 200 years , ans is used in the Bible wich was written a few thousand years ago...

 

[Master Gracy]

We shouldn't be surprised that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible as such.
The word "dinosaur" was invented only about 150 years ago. So the actual word "dinosaur" will not be in the Bible. This does not mean the Bible is inaccurate in its' description of history or that God didn't know about dinosaurs - after all, cats aren't mentioned in the Bible either. "


But word like "homosexual" were invented in the the last 200 years , ans is used in the Bible wich was written a few thousand years ago...

homosexual is in the bible?
i didnt know that

 

[themarquis]

something weird happened to my Jesus Horse ...

so here it is again!

 

[kmbound]

We shouldn't be surprised that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible as such.
The word "dinosaur" was invented only about 150 years ago. So the actual word "dinosaur" will not be in the Bible. This does not mean the Bible is inaccurate in its' description of history or that God didn't know about dinosaurs - after all, cats aren't mentioned in the Bible either. "


But word like "homosexual" were invented in the the last 200 years , ans is used in the Bible wich was written a few thousand years ago...

"homosexual" is not in the Bible but the practice of sodomy is written about.

Check out this link to search http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Also read Romans 1:26-27 where the practice of sodomy is alluded too.

 

[Laura]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Noahs-Flood,4835,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-Flood-Pack-The,5022,263.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/After-the-Flood,4462,224.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Flood-Geology,5539,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Pub...r-The-Genesis-Flood-the-Ice-Age,4757,229.aspx

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Pub...d-the-FloodWhats-the-Connection,4801,229.aspx

All resources available that will back my claim. I do not bother posting website information because there is way too much that is not true and it is not sufficient support for the claim. These resources are all done by well respected highly educated scientist that believe, support and advocate the truth of the flood and how it affected the world.

We're supposed to buy DVDs?

As for EVERY society - I would like to ammend that to read ALMOST EVERY - either way it still supports the original point that the story of a world wide flood touches the entire world and it is not limited to American Christianity or the Bible in and of itself.

List of flood myths:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Basically, the Bible borrows flood stories from religions that existed nearby; the Near east myths are very similar. It's not surprising that they exist in many places, considering early civilizations depended on rivers/coasts that they lived next to. Waters rising and falling would have been a big deal. Many of the myths are very different, in some all the animals perish, even fish.

Why a global flood isn't likely to have happened:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

[salmoneous]

I was not aware I was misrepresenting anything, after all, the major evolutionary palaeontologists say exactly the same thing. That there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Here's a few quotes to show I'm not making things up or misstating the science.

But these people aren't saying "exactly the same thing". When we leave the world of faith, and get into the world of science, we have to be exact. We have to be very careful with what people are saying - and what they are not saying. Go back to your original quote - then compare to what you've posted below. Are they exactly the same thing?

 

[kmbound]

I don't care if you buy them or not but I was at least posting somewhere to find the evidence - as opposed to the internet which is completely unreliable in terms of truth.

 

[Laura]

I don't care if you buy them or not but I was at least posting somewhere to find the evidence - as opposed to the internet which is completely unreliable in terms of truth.

Really? I haven't found that to be the case for all of the internet. Answers in Genesis doesn't rely on good science, but there are sites that are quite reliable. Here's a good one: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

 

[salmoneous]

All resources available that will back my claim.

Not a single one of the six links you provide mention that all cultures have a worldwide flood myth, and that a worldwide flood is the only myth that is in common to all cultures.

These resources are all done by well respected highly educated scientist that believe, support and advocate the truth of the flood and how it affected the world.

That may be true, but do any of them claim that all cultures have a worldwide flood myth, and that a worldwide flood myth is the only myth that is common to all cultures?

As for EVERY society - I would like to ammend that to read ALMOST EVERY - either way it still supports the original point that the story of a world wide flood touches the entire world and it is not limited to American Christianity or the Bible in and of itself.

When we are talking about science - and not faith - it's important to be acurate. It seems even you are now agreeing that your original statement wasn't true.

There is a big difference between saying many societies have stories about catastrophic floods and saying every culture has a story of a world-wide flood, and that a worldwide flood is the only universal story.

I think if you start looking at the evidence we have, you'll not only have to amend that "every" to "almost every", you'll also have to realize that many of the stories don't talk about a worldwide flood. Nor, I suspect, will you find any evidence that flood stories are the only universal stories.

Does the frequency of flood myths provide scientific evidence in support of Noah's flood? Maybe, maybe not. But before we can discuss the science, we need to be exact about what evidence we do have, and what we don't have.