Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gigantals said:
Here it is on a fancy site and everything:

And if you want to read the actual report (just ignore the ICC page): https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=icc_proceedings
Click to expand...
“Geologist Tim Clarey (2015) is an advocate of the foating mat model for the origin of Carboniferous coal because he believes that dead lycopods were assembled into rafts and floated through the Flood.”

All I can say is…good grief. To have something like that included into a scientific paper…
 
Regardless of whether it’s a flood or The Flood, the science is there. My St Helen’s proved it and still proves it to this day. Steve Austin laid the foundations of his work in the secular world to be accepted as valid science, before building upon that for his Creationism views
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
Regardless of whether it’s a flood or The Flood, the science is there. My St Helen’s proved it and still proves it to this day. Steve Austin laid the foundations of his work in the secular world to be accepted as valid science, before building upon that for his Creationism views
Click to expand...
A flood and The Flood aren’t the same. You are being disengenous. Austin may bring in a lot of geological terms and references but he has based his claim on a fundamentalist interpretation of a chapter in a religious book.

He is a religious fundamentalist who uses science to try to convince others of his views.
 
What I’m trying to say is that the method of coal formation Steve Austin put forward is valid science. It works in the Flood model too, with comparison drawn between the characteristics of the Kentucky peat layers and what’s going on at the bottom of Spirit Lake. It shows we don’t need thousands of years of forests to form coal.

If we’re talking about the historical interpretation validity of the Genesis book, then I’ll need to crack open my book on Hebrew grammar.

The first five books of the Bible are written in the same narrative. This narrative is basically the Hebrew Historical narrative. Not once in the book of Genesus does the narrative change (and the indicators of the historical narrative is 51 in Gen 1 alone).

The Book of Psalms is an example of the Hebrew Literature narrative. A collection of poems is clearly different to a history book.

The closest we get to a poetic narrative is only when someone speaks, not in the actual background narrative (like Gen 1:27, 2:23 and 4:23-24).

If we had a map of the pre-Flood World, Genesis 1-11 gives us such an accurate geographical location of Eden that we would’ve been able to find it. Bit specific.

The seamless chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 allow us to make a perfect timeline between the Fall and the Flood. Bit specific again.

When we go from the primeval history to the patriarchal history in Genesis, there is no break. It is one seamless piece.

When Genesis is quoted in the New Testament, it is treated as history. Luke 3:23-38 and Hebrews 11:4-28 both mention primeval and patriarchal history, without changing their historical take on it.

Nothing in the Bible is useless. Every detail mentioned has some use. Even the post-Flood drunk incident and curse Noah gave to Ham.

Whoever wrote the book of Genesis (probably Moses), genuinely believed what he was being told by God was history.
 
Last edited:
Gigantals said:
What I’m trying to say is that the method of coal formation Steve Austin put forward is valid science.
Click to expand...
It’s a method of laying down coal, but not in the time periods required. He’s constricted to a few thousand years so he starts with a fundamental interpretation of the bible and then builds everything around that. That’s not science.
 
whatistrue said:
Signs plus grunts were, as I stated multiple times, a possible form of the beginning of language, not the “perfect” end stage. Because as societies developed (there’s that word again…) people saw a need for more complex communication methods and then made them. And you should know that nothing human-made ever was or ever will be perfect. All languages are human-made, even if the capacity for language itself was “built in” so to speak.

And to horn in on another conversation for a bit…
Click to expand...
“…a possible form of the beginning of language…”, I told you this is an impossibility and there’s no evidence or a demonstration that grunts and signs can develop into words with meaning.
whatistrue said:
people saw a need for more complex communication methods
Click to expand...
People seeing a need is no longer randomness nor is it an accident but it is purpose and design. We are not talking evolution, we are into something else. Who would have thought there is a ‘post evolution era’ where an organism decides what is fit and what is not.
 
Last edited:
Human Babies pick up on complex Human Languages extremely easily…
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
When Darwin first penned his work, he didn’t know how genetics worked. Mendelian genetics wasn’t widely accepted until decades later.
Click to expand...
Which is why - Darwin’s theory - could never have been correct…

His ‘science’ argument - Historical rather than empiricals
  • rested upon Paleontology and guesswork…
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
We call that learning
Click to expand...
Yes… The Mind of Human Babies learn incredibly swiftly - via built in Instinct
which is why Humans are the natural ‘lords’ over beasts, etc,. and etc…
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
Yes… The Mind of Human Babies learn incredibly swiftly - via built in Instinct
which is why Humans are the natural ‘lords’ over beasts, etc,. and etc…
Click to expand...
What language will a baby with a ‘well built instinct’ speak if they are never taught any language?
 
EndTimes said:
Adam heard God Speak… I don’t know which language… You?
Click to expand...
My ancestor realized that evolution is not progressing well and the grunts are no longer fit for purpose then he decided to try some new form of communication; grunts moved to signs + grunts, then slowly from signs to words, then meaning of words
 
Noose001 said:
My ancestor realized that evolution is not progressing well and the grunts are no longer fit for purpose then he decided to try some new form of communication; grunts moved to signs + grunts, then slowly from signs to words, then meaning of words
Click to expand...
Man and only Man gave names to all the beasts …
The Bible says so… And we know so…
 
Noose001 said:
My ancestor realized that evolution is not progressing well and the grunts are no longer fit for purpose then he decided to try some new form of communication; grunts moved to signs + grunts, then slowly from signs to words, then meaning of words.
Click to expand...
Are you following your own arguments?
Noose001 said:
I told you this is an impossibility and there’s no evidence or a demonstration that grunts and signs can develop into words with meaning.
Click to expand...
It seems there’s no need to contradict what you post. You do it quite convincingly by yourself. We call that a ‘Buffalo’ around here.
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
40.png
EndTimes:
Yes… The Mind of Human Babies learn incredibly swiftly - via built in Instinct
which is why Humans are the natural ‘lords’ over beasts, etc,. and etc…
Click to expand...
What language will a baby with a ‘well built instinct’ speak if they are never taught any language?
Click to expand...
I think he is agreeing with you that Humans didn’t evolve , and that language is something that came from God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top