Part 3 "Can you prove Evolution?"

[josh1anderson]

False, using scripture to prove Jesus' existence equates to citing Darwin for proof of evolution, fighting for peace, and ing for virginity...

BTW, the burden of proof is on you.

Here you go, read this and find yourself a hankie
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

 

[LATruth]

Here you go, read this and find yourself a hankie
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

That's not proof, that's hearsay. You cite 2 passages of VERY biased text...

He was born Joseph ben Mattathias in Jerusalem in 37 CE, a few years after the time of Jesus, during the time of the Roman occupation of the Jewish homeland. In his early twenties he was sent to Rome to negotiate the release of several priests held hostage by Emperor Nero. When he returned home after completing his mission he found the nation beginning a revolution against the Romans.

Despite his foreboding that the cause was hopeless, he was drafted into becoming commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee, where he spent more time controlling internal factions than fighting the Roman army. When the city of Jotapata he was defending fell to the Roman general Vespasian, Josephus and his supporters hid in a cave and entered into a suicide pact, which Josephus oddly survived.

Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Josephus presented himself as a prophet.

It was in HIS BEST INTEREST for Jesus to have been for his survival... of course he would validate this through his own writings. Besides, he lived AFTER Jesus' time and didn't witness anything. He read and listened to stories and cited them as well.

 

[josh1anderson]

and your point

 

[LATruth]

and your point

No hankie needed I guess.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Here you go, read this and find yourself a hankie
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

We have a lot of Christians on this forum who say that a man named Christ never existed... They claim the story of Christ is derivative of a man named Yeshua, who indeed did exist.

I don't know much about the history but, i've certainly never seen any convincing evidence that Christ ever existed, aside from passages that prove and disprove nothing.

 

[josh1anderson]

then you are going to hell

 

[ClayTrainor]

then you are going to hell

I can't tell if you're being serious, or just joking.

I hope for you're sake, you're joking, if that's your best argument

Hell is just a state of mind, and i've already been there many times

 

[Mesogen]

Maybe today it is... in fact since 1983 it has been defined such that the length of a meter changes (C is defined as constant, a Meter is not) based on how fast light moves. Before that though the speed of light had been measured as gradually slower even when considering mathematical uncertainty of the measurements. So if you go simply by the definition of C as a constant 299,792,458 m/s then you can perhaps say that it doesn't change, but if you go based on a pre-1983 style of actually measuring the speed of light by a constant length of a meter (and constant length of time in seconds) then it indeed has changed over time to be slower. This has huge implications in dealing with a wide variety of subjects including measuring distances in the universe as well as things like radioactive half-lives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/accelerating.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
= "A Creation Perspective."

I'm sure these guys are top notch physicists.

 

[jsu718]

http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/index.html
= "A Creation Perspective."

I'm sure these guys are top notch physicists.

Good job. Ignore properly tested and proven historical scientific data because of three words on one of three sites that I linked that you don't agree with before even looking at the truth. You truly are a superior specimen of debate.

 

[Theocrat]

A Debate: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

This is an interview/debate done by "Faith Under Fire" with Lee Strobel. It is my hope that this exchange of scientific beliefs will help clear up some of the confusion we are having when we discuss the nature of scientific data and what we believe it shows evidence of.

YouTube - Stephen Meyer vs Michael Shermer parte 1

YouTube - Stephen Meyer vs Michael Shermer parte 2

 

[Mesogen]

Good job. Ignore properly tested and proven historical scientific data because of three words on one of three sites that I linked that you don't agree with before even looking at the truth. You truly are a superior specimen of debate.

Properly tested and proven?

I looked over your links. One was a popular news story. Another was just some webpage whose homepage is a huge thing about how literal Biblical Creationism is right.

http://tasc-creationscience.org/other/plaisted/www.cs.unc.edu/_plaisted/ce/index.html

The third one seems to be on a mathematician's personal website and it has this:

The SI definition makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics. For example, they assume that the particle of light, the photon, is massless. If the photon had a small rest mass, the SI definition of the metre would become meaningless because the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength.

Yes, if the photon has mass then the speed of light would change as a function of its wavelength.

BUT THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.

From gamma rays to long radio waves, a span of wavelengths from picometers (smaller than an atom) to kilometers, the speed of light has never been observed to vary.

And this has nothing to do with any possible changes in the speed of light over time, which is what you're getting at.

 

[Bman]

Maybe today it is... in fact since 1983 it has been defined such that the length of a meter changes (C is defined as constant, a Meter is not) based on how fast light moves. Before that though the speed of light had been measured as gradually slower even when considering mathematical uncertainty of the measurements. So if you go simply by the definition of C as a constant 299,792,458 m/s then you can perhaps say that it doesn't change, but if you go based on a pre-1983 style of actually measuring the speed of light by a constant length of a meter (and constant length of time in seconds) then it indeed has changed over time to be slower. This has huge implications in dealing with a wide variety of subjects including measuring distances in the universe as well as things like radioactive half-lives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/tech/main517850.shtml
http://cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/accelerating.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

So you are syaing that it is possible for light to change speed in a vacuum?

 

[jsu718]

So you are syaing that it is possible for light to change speed in a vacuum?

I am saying it has been measured to change over time. As I said in my post it is not possible to alter conditions so that the speed of light in a vacuum would change today without making it not a vacuum, but it has measurably changed in the last 250 years before the value for C was set as constant in 1983 instead of being determined by measurement with a constant measure of time and length of a meter.

 

[Mesogen]

I am saying it has been measured to change over time.

By whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_techniques

In 1728, James Bradley deduced that starlight falling on the Earth should appear to come from a slight angle, which could be calculated by comparing the speed of the Earth in its orbit to the speed of light. This "aberration of light", as it is called, was observed to be about 1/200 of a degree. Bradley calculated the speed of light as about 298,000 kilometres per second (186,000 miles per second).

This guy measured the speed of light in 1728 and got really really close to the values we get today.

 

[jsu718]

By whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Astronomical_techniques



This guy measured the speed of light in 1728 and got really really close to the values we get today.

301000 is not the same as 298000, so whatever your source is not only didn't get the value correct but did not include the uncertainty of the measurement.

 

[nate895]

Dog is just some word we use to describe what looks to us like similar animals.

All of what we commonly call "dogs" fit into the Family Canidae. This includes all Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, etc.

Are these all of the "Dog Kind"?

I'm just trying to reconcile the Linnean taxonomy with Baraminology.

If we can say that all of the Family Canidae are dogs in the dog kind, then surely there has been some "macro"evolution since the Great Flood. If there were only 2 individual canids (dog kind) aboard the ark, and now there are a few dozen species of canids, then "macro"evolution is necessary to explain the diversity of life within the literal Biblical creationist model.

The Biblical model is that the "kind" referred to in Genesis is probably somewhere between a genus and an order. As far as "macro"evolution being necessary, that depends on what you mean by "macro"evolution. When I use that term, I mean the idea that all living things came from one ancestor, and none were the result of a special creation by God.

No, it still would not until a rigorous definition of the term "kind" is developed and then all the "kinds" on Earth were categorized. Then we'd have to determine if the number of kinds could then fit on a vessel the size described in Genesis.

We have to remember the criterion for the animals to be able to make it on to the Ark:

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

Fowl is defined as: 1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus). This could mean that God mean an order by the use of the words "kind" or "sort," but we cannot know for sure. We also have to remember that only land animals that need air to survive are included in the Ark. Noah didn't need to take in every little species, nor did he need to take in species that could survive for a year outside of the Ark. Creationist estimates for this are 2,000 to 36,000 different kinds.

Where do you draw the line with "kind"? Roughly correlating with the Linnean system, would you draw the line at Class? Family?

Maybe you would discard the Linnean system altogether and say that a "kind" is simply a population that can interbreed. Then you're really talking about a huge number of "kinds." Way more than 36,000, especially if you want to bring insects and arthropods into this.

Maybe, but which of those absolutely could not survive for a year in an ocean environment? Insects and other bugs are not mentioned in the story, and many insects breed in the water and live there much of the time. I would suspect only those who could not survive would be in the Ark. That would really limit those that would absolutely need to be in the Ark.

Ok, so genetic information would be a DNA sequence that performs a function.
If we change the order of DNA and change the function, would that be an increase or decrease in genetic information? You could have the same number of base pairs, but the arrangement changed.

Like this:

isawtwobeetlesmakinglove
anywomanthatcandowilldo
hslauebfkxusdnckdyokadfh

Which character string has more information?

Some organisms have WAY more genetic information in their cells that humans. Some very simple plants have over 1200 chromosomes. So genetic information might not have so much to do with complexity.

But, how would these old DNA sequences acquire new meanings, and how could there possible be an animal so lucky as to pop out with a fully functional kidney when it?

Well, I thought we were talking about complexity with respect to information, but lets go with what you wrote.

You're saying that adding a kidney increases complexity, so it's beneficial (if you needed a kidney in the first place, not all land animals have kidneys, insects, etc. have filtering cells). Does that mean that adding complexity is always beneficial?

If I had eyes on the soles of my feet, that would be more complex, but it would hardly be beneficial.

I didn't say that something that increases in complexity is beneficial, I was saying that I don't believe entirely new and beneficial systems can come about by random chance. DNA is a language to the cells, and makes up a book. Randomly changing it very rarely leads to better information.

Your arguments were pretty much theirs.

Great minds think alike.

Holy Mackerel, the whole universe? So there was no "decay" before Eve ate the fruit? No radioactive decay? No orbital decay? Hell, no entropy?

I'm curious what you consider to be decay and what didn't decay before Eve ate the fruit.

You are making the assumption that everything is now as it once was. You can't prove that.

And here we go again with a God that has never been dead being dead for 3 days.

Physical death is not the same as real death. Christ has never been dead, for he was simply the Lord in the flesh. His body died, but he did not. He later took his body back and came to life.

But what was the other light? The light that didn't come from the (any) sun?

What does it matter? You are working backwards. Proverbs 1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

In order to truly see the world and what is true, you must first fear the Lord JHWH.

So photosynthesis was not necessary for plants. Got it.

And Adam never had to eat, although the whole Garden of Eden was given to him to eat. Um ok.

Once again you make uniformitarian assumptions, just because something is now true does not make it true always. Adam needed to eat, but not for the same reasons that we do now. He needed spiritual nourishment, and eating has always been a source of joy. He did not need it to prevent his body from proceeding rapidly to death.

But the Bible seems to be referring to the invention of light itself. It doesn't matter. I'm glad you are deferring to the miraculous and magical nature of the Genesis story. With miracles there is no need to look for physical evidence of their occurrence.

Just like the flood. If people want to say it was magic and a miracle, then do that. But people should say that this or that is evidence of a flood, when it's not.

Once again, you must start with the Lord and work backwards. When we see the layers of rock, and the fossils, we see the results of a catastrophic flood. Also, when we see features such as the Grand Canyon and the Columbia River Gorge, we see the results of a global catastrophe. Even many secular evolutionists accept the idea that those natural features were not cut slowly by the rivers that flow through them, but by catastrophic flood forces. However, their Humanism blinds them to the fact that it could have been the Great Flood of Noah.

So does the Bible condemn incest and inbreeding anywhere?

If not, the Bible is cool with inbreeding (that would explain a lot of the south) but not cool with homosexuality. Makes sense I guess.

Yes, the Bible condemns incest, and it does so before it condemns homosexuality (18:6 vs 18:22):

1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God.

3After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

4Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

5Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

6None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the LORD.

7The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

8The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

9The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

10The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.

11The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

12Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman.

13Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.

14Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.

15Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.

16Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness.

17Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.

18Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.

19Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.

20Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her.

21And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled

28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

 

[nate895]

I'm saying people who think the Earth and Universe were created 10,000 years ago are plain nuts(i.e. Kent Hovind and his ilk).

Seeing distant stars does not mean that the Earth is not around the age the Bible says, nor does it make the Bible account not true. Like I have said, there is "observed time" and "calculated time," and the only time that meant anything before the discovery of the speed of light was "observed time," therefore the Bible could be using that time. If God would have used "calculated time," and really have created the stars on Day 4 Earth time, then the ancients might well have disbelieved the Word of God because they would believe that creation was still happening in the sky because they did not know better.

 

[nate895]

Evolution is fact. If you don't "believe" in facts, you're a moron.

Creation is fact. If you don't "believe" in facts, you're a moron.

This demonstrates my point that we are working from different assumptions. All logic is based on assumptions, here is the real difference between secular evolutionists and Young-Earth creationists:

Secularist:

Assumption: We can see everything or prove it. If you can't prove it or see it, it either doesn't exist or needs more evidence. We can't see God, therefore he either must not exist, or is not the God of the Bible. That means the Bible is not true, and therefore the way we came into existence must have been through natural means. Also, things are generally the same now as they have been in the past.

Result: Evolution

Creationist:

Assumption: The Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Result: Young-Earth, and phenomena x is the result of y or z from the Bible.

In the middle (Theistic Evolution and Old-Earth creation):

Assumption (not exactly the same for everyone): We can see most things and prove them. Things are now generally as they have been.

Result: They see the points in both arguments, and arrive at in the middle conclusions because they don't believe the secularist assertions that everything can be explained naturally, but they believe at the same time that things are now as they have been. This leads them to believe in older ages for the Earth.

 

[Mesogen]

301000 is not the same as 298000, so whatever your source is not only didn't get the value correct but did not include the uncertainty of the measurement.

Where do you get 310,000? Not one of those classic measurements comes to 310,000. They all come in under today's accepted value.

Do you think they were making inaccurate measurements or was light slower in the past?

The Biblical model is that the "kind" referred to in Genesis is probably somewhere between a genus and an order. As far as "macro"evolution being necessary, that depends on what you mean by "macro"evolution. When I use that term, I mean the idea that all living things came from one ancestor, and none were the result of a special creation by God.

Ah, so you're ok with the fact that populations radiate out geographically and eventually get to a point where they split into two populations that can no longer interbreed. That's called speciation. It happens by natural selection. It's Darwinism.

Good to know that the Bible is compatible with Darwinism.

We have to remember the criterion for the animals to be able to make it on to the Ark:



Fowl is defined as: 1. Any of various birds of the order Galliformes, especially the common, widely domesticated chicken (Gallus gallus). This could mean that God mean an order by the use of the words "kind" or "sort," but we cannot know for sure. We also have to remember that only land animals that need air to survive are included in the Ark. Noah didn't need to take in every little species, nor did he need to take in species that could survive for a year outside of the Ark. Creationist estimates for this are 2,000 to 36,000 different kinds.

That's fine just fine now that we can have speciation (Darwinism).

Problem is that now, under your model based on the inerrant word of god, it all has to happen really really fast. Way faster than those Darwinists believe that it happens.

Maybe, but which of those absolutely could not survive for a year in an ocean environment? Insects and other bugs are not mentioned in the story, and many insects breed in the water and live there much of the time. I would suspect only those who could not survive would be in the Ark. That would really limit those that would absolutely need to be in the Ark.

But is that what's really important? Let's see what the Bible says.

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

He's going to destroy man, beast, and creeping things, and the fowl of the air. I'm going to guess that creeping things = bugs.

The LORD didn't say that he would try to destroy them with a flood. He said he would.

All animal life on earth's surface (except Noah and what was in his ark) would be destroyed.

So all land animals that weren't destroyed were on Noah's ark. All land animals not on Noah's ark were destroyed.

But this point is moot now that we can have ultra-rapid Darwinism after the flood waters subside.

But, how would these old DNA sequences acquire new meanings, and how could there possible be an animal so lucky as to pop out with a fully functional kidney when it?

That's obviously not how it works.

Some species in the past had something that filtered it's bodily fluids. Species that derived from it also had filter organs but they were slightly different. Eventually over time, the filtering organ in some species was what we would call a kidney.

Obviously DNA doesn't rearrange (and all the complicated transcription mechanisms) and out pops a new fully formed organ.

I didn't say that something that increases in complexity is beneficial, I was saying that I don't believe entirely new and beneficial systems can come about by random chance. DNA is a language to the cells, and makes up a book. Randomly changing it very rarely leads to better information.

Mutation may be mostly random, but natural selection is not random.

You are making the assumption that everything is now as it once was. You can't prove that.

The only reason people assume that the laws of nature are the same now as they were in the past is because there has never been any reason to think otherwise.

If there were some evidence that the laws of nature were any different than they are today, then there would be reason to doubt the notion. So far there hasn't been.

But you can't just say, with nothing to back it up, "Oh, well the laws of nature were different in the past so we can't know anything about the past."

That's a sure fire science stopper.

Physical death is not the same as real death. Christ has never been dead, for he was simply the Lord in the flesh. His body died, but he did not. He later took his body back and came to life.

So Jesus did not die for anyone's sins. There was no sacrifice. It was just a temporary shell that was sloughed off. Why do a billion people make such a big deal about it?

What does it matter? You are working backwards. Proverbs 1:7: The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

In order to truly see the world and what is true, you must first fear the Lord JHWH.

Do not question. Only obey.

Once again you make uniformitarian assumptions, just because something is now true does not make it true always.

Because if you don't you can't do science to figure out the past.

And so far it's worked out quite well for us to do so, which makes a pretty good case that stuff now is like stuff then.

Adam needed to eat, but not for the same reasons that we do now. He needed spiritual nourishment, and eating has always been a source of joy. He did not need it to prevent his body from proceeding rapidly to death.

Ah, kinda like Commander Data. Well, Data didn't need to eat, but he could just for fun.

Once again, you must start with the Lord and work backwards.

This is the root of your problems with understanding the real world.

You're starting with conclusions and trying to fit the evidence to the conclusions. This is completely backwards. You can't start with the assumption that every word of the Bible is literally true and then try to fit physical evidence into that conclusion while excluding all evidence that does not fit.

When we see the layers of rock, and the fossils, we see the results of a catastrophic flood.

Because you are taking a cursory look at it with your conclusions already solidified in your mind. Once you are satisfied with your explanation, all further inquiry is halted. You don't explore alternative hypotheses and test them. You don't even test your pet hypothesis.

Would a flood really lay down miles of layered rock? What flood in the past has ever done this? Could this be simulated under controlled conditions? What experiments could bear this out?

Also, when we see features such as the Grand Canyon and the Columbia River Gorge, we see the results of a global catastrophe.

Again, you need to do experiments or have some sort of observational data to determine how this happened.

You can't start with a conclusion (there was a global flood caused by god) and then look at a mile or so deep layered rock and just say "yup, flood did that" without having some supporting evidence as to how it could have happened.

Even many secular evolutionists accept the idea that those natural features were not cut slowly by the rivers that flow through them, but by catastrophic flood forces. However, their Humanism blinds them to the fact that it could have been the Great Flood of Noah.

I'd bet there were indeed some good old flooding around in the grand canyon at certain times in the past, and I'm sure there is evidence for this, corroborated with other evidence that shows that it was massive flooding, most likely at numerous times in the past.

But it's dumb to say that these geologists, etc. are "blinded by their humanism" so they can't see that a fairy tale for kids is true.

Yes, the Bible condemns incest, and it does so before it condemns homosexuality (18:6 vs 18:22):

Odd that God would condemn incest and then make it absolutely necessary.

 

[nate895]

Ah, so you're ok with the fact that populations radiate out geographically and eventually get to a point where they split into two populations that can no longer interbreed. That's called speciation. It happens by natural selection. It's Darwinism.

Good to know that the Bible is compatible with Darwinism.

Natural selection is where preferable traits are selected over less preferable traits. Hence, there are different traits between dog species from the equator and the arctic regions. There is no mechanism in natural selection where new information can be added, only taken away.

That's fine just fine now that we can have speciation (Darwinism).

Problem is that now, under your model based on the inerrant word of god, it all has to happen really really fast. Way faster than those Darwinists believe that it happens.

It isn't exactly Darwinism because information is taken away, not added, to the genome. Let's stick with the dog comparison. Under our model, there was an original dog kind that had all the genes of the modern cannidae family. Eventually, as these dogs spread out, dogs with favorable traits were selected for certain climates. The short hair gene was eliminated from arctic dogs, and visa versa for those living in the equatorial regions. A simple punnet square says this can happen quite rapidly, possibly in only a couple of generations for certain families.

But is that what's really important? Let's see what the Bible says.

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

He's going to destroy man, beast, and creeping things, and the fowl of the air. I'm going to guess that creeping things = bugs.

The LORD didn't say that he would try to destroy them with a flood. He said he would.

All animal life on earth's surface (except Noah and what was in his ark) would be destroyed.

So all land animals that weren't destroyed were on Noah's ark. All land animals not on Noah's ark were destroyed.

But this point is moot now that we can have ultra-rapid Darwinism after the flood waters subside.

There is no implication that this includes things that would not die in an aquatic environment.

That's obviously not how it works.

Some species in the past had something that filtered it's bodily fluids. Species that derived from it also had filter organs but they were slightly different. Eventually over time, the filtering organ in some species was what we would call a kidney.

Obviously DNA doesn't rearrange (and all the complicated transcription mechanisms) and out pops a new fully formed organ.

There are many organs where it is impossible for them to function without being in their complete state. Kidneys are one example, there has to be an organ with all the functions of a kidney at first. Otherwise, the organ would be useless and would be eliminated because it is simply burdensome, and of no use.

Mutation may be mostly random, but natural selection is not random.

Natural selection can only take away genes, it cannot add to the genome.

The only reason people assume that the laws of nature are the same now as they were in the past is because there has never been any reason to think otherwise.

If there were some evidence that the laws of nature were any different than they are today, then there would be reason to doubt the notion. So far there hasn't been.

But you can't just say, with nothing to back it up, "Oh, well the laws of nature were different in the past so we can't know anything about the past."

That's a sure fire science stopper.

You can't use science to determine the past for certain. You can't go back and conduct experiments in that time. You can't go around saying "we know that the everything evolved from one common ancestor because phenomena x happens today." You just can't ever know for certain because you can't experiment with the past.

So Jesus did not die for anyone's sins. There was no sacrifice. It was just a temporary shell that was sloughed off. Why do a billion people make such a big deal about it?

The blood that Christ shed is what covers us, not His death in and of itself. Blood is what is required to forgive our sins.

Do not question. Only obey.

We do question. We have faith, but it is not blind. We do not have to go back and edit the Bible to make it jive with what we know for a fact. The worst we ever have to do is ask what God really meant by what is written.

Because if you don't you can't do science to figure out the past.

And so far it's worked out quite well for us to do so, which makes a pretty good case that stuff now is like stuff then.

You can't do science to figure out the past unless you make an assumption that you cannot prove. Creation scientists assume the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, evolutionary biologists assume that nature is responsible for the past.

Ah, kinda like Commander Data. Well, Data didn't need to eat, but he could just for fun.

I am not a SciFi fan, but I understand the reference.

This is the root of your problems with understanding the real world.

You're starting with conclusions and trying to fit the evidence to the conclusions. This is completely backwards. You can't start with the assumption that every word of the Bible is literally true and then try to fit physical evidence into that conclusion while excluding all evidence that does not fit.

No, we are starting with an assumption, as do you. You are starting with the idea that nature can explain what has happened in the past and going forward with that premise. We are starting with the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Because you are taking a cursory look at it with your conclusions already solidified in your mind. Once you are satisfied with your explanation, all further inquiry is halted. You don't explore alternative hypotheses and test them. You don't even test your pet hypothesis.

Would a flood really lay down miles of layered rock? What flood in the past has ever done this? Could this be simulated under controlled conditions? What experiments could bear this out?

I only started being a literal creationist last week (no joke), so the idea that I took that assumption and looked backwards is false. I realized that it would be entirely reasonable to take up that assumption. It is also false for many of the people on the staff of creation science organizations (in fact, a few were raised outright atheists).

As for a flood laying down layered rock, the layered rock is nearly all near the surface. Creation scientists note the passage (Genesis 7:11) that states "...the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were open." Many creation scientists take this to mean that volcanoes, earthquakes, and geysers happened alongside the Flood. These are what caused the vast majority of the rock layers, and that is how many of the fossils came into being. The rock layers are exactly what a creationist would expect from the Flood. This process is also thought to have caused the split between the continents.

Again, you need to do experiments or have some sort of observational data to determine how this happened.

You can't start with a conclusion (there was a global flood caused by god) and then look at a mile or so deep layered rock and just say "yup, flood did that" without having some supporting evidence as to how it could have happened.

I am not starting with a conclusion, I am starting with an assumption. Everyone must start out with an assumption to be able to conduct any sort of logical argument. We happen to have diametrically opposed assumptions, so we confuse each other's assumptions with conclusions.

I'd bet there were indeed some good old flooding around in the grand canyon at certain times in the past, and I'm sure there is evidence for this, corroborated with other evidence that shows that it was massive flooding, most likely at numerous times in the past.

But it's dumb to say that these geologists, etc. are "blinded by their humanism" so they can't see that a fairy tale for kids is true.

Their conclusion is based on their original assumption, and my conclusion is based on my assumption. If they simply stepped back and thought about it in an open-minded manner, they might come to believe it is possible that a Great Flood caused these phenomena. If they did so, they would probably come to a belief in God because of the two options, the God option has far less consequences and far more rewards.

Odd that God would condemn incest and then make it absolutely necessary.

God condemns incest at this point probably because it creates mutants. Prior to this, the curse had not had such a great effect as to make the odds of mutant children from incestuous relations very high, and that would mean that the primary reason for not having incestuous relations (other than them being physically revolting) would be moot.