Evolution vs Creation

[Timothy]

Oh yeah Mel, I need all the reason of why you claim that Noah's Ark did not exists. So please explain further in as much detail as possible. Thanks.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Timothy

[Melchisedec]

[quote]2. Do you beleive that the universe is stagnant?[/quote]

Another contested topic. I'm inclined to say that there is ample proof of an expanding universe. No.


[quote]
3. Do you believe that the universe always existed?[/quote]

I believe it to be a possibility. Yes.


[quote]
4.  Do you believe in evolution?[/quote]

I believe in the large umbrella that is evolution. But when most people ask about evolution they are most often referring to human evolution. My stance on that is one of equal skepticism. While I do acknowledge our current fossil record, I still think that there are too many assumptions in regards to human evolution. Do I believe it to be a categorical fact. No.


[quote]
5. Do you believe that a person has a soul?[/quote]

My favorite question. Do I believe in a self, a soul you might call it. What is consciousness , springs to mind. Are we simply acting on casuation or do we posses free will. I am inclined to say that we posses free will. Determinism is a highly debated topic, in fact this week on infidelguy there is a good show on it. Which you could call in and pose questions to a determinst. I have read alot about this subject and our current efforts in the scientific realm. Some scientist feel its a dead end street, that we will never locate a self inside the brain. Others like Dr. Susan Greenfield, believe we do have a self and are currently using brain imaging to better understand the brain and ourselves. Just recently scientist have learned more about empathy, which they call 'mirror nuerons'. In essence, the ability to read minds. Its fascinating, and it could very well hold many answers. It could provide legitamate proof of a supernatural element. I reserve my final judgement until further research is made on the subject. My answer to you is, I believe in a self. What the self is composed of or where it resides I do not know. My idea of a self is not necessarily in line with your theistic views, so my answer will be Yes and No

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Mel

[zealousdefender]

Hmm. If I understand correctly, Mel could be on his way.

(Hi Mel :peace: )

[scardella]

OOOH!

GK Chesterton's [i]Orthodoxy[/i] is a wonderful commentary on this! I'm reading it now. (Now, I see why Fr. Terence Henry of Franciscan U. always quotes him.)

Because it is public domain, it's available for free on the internet:
[url="http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/Orthodoxy-Gilbert.K.Chesterton.pdf"]http://www.hismercy.ca/content/ebooks/Orth....Chesterton.pdf[/url]

I'm trying to find a good quote, but the whole thing seems illuminative of our discussion.

[b]Here's the best two I found in about 5 minutes:[/b]

[quote]Evolution is a good example of that
modern intelligence which, if it destroys
anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an
innocent scientific description of how certain
earthly things came about; or, if it is anything
more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself.
If evolution destroys anything, it does not
destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution
simply means that a positive thing called an ape
turned very slowly into a positive thing called a
man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox;
for a personal God might just as well do things
slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian
God, he were outside time. But if it means
anything more, it means that there is no such
thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a
man for him to change into. It means that there is
no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only
one thing, and that is a flux of everything and
anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but
upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no
things to think about. You cannot think if you are
not separate from the subject of thought.
Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The
philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives
the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I
cannot think.”[/quote]

[quote]But what we suffer from to-day is
humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved
from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled
upon the organ of conviction; where it was never
meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful
about himself, but undoubting about the truth;
this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the
part of a man that a man does assert is exactly
the part he ought not to assert himself. The part
he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to
doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a
humility content to learn from Nature. But the
new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can
even learn. [/quote]

[b]Also, to comment directly on the situation:[/b]
How do you explain two different Creation stories? I'm not sure whether I believe in evolution or not, but you can't take both Creation stories literally. One says man was created last, male and female, while the other says that animals came after mankind man (adam in Heb), then God made adam into ish (man) and isha (woman) last. You'd have to say at least one was symbolic or allegorical or somesuch.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 28 2005, 10:37 AM']
Another contested topic. I'm inclined to say that there is ample proof of an expanding universe. No.




I believe it to be a possibility. Yes


I believe in the large umbrella that is evolution. But when most people ask about evolution they are most often referring to human evolution. My stance on that is one of equal skepticism. While I do acknowledge our current fossil record, I still think that there are too many assumptions in regards to human evolution. Do I believe it to be a categorical fact. No.




My favorite question. Do I believe in a self, a soul you might call it. What is consciousness , springs to mind. Are we simply acting on casuation or do we posses free will. I am inclined to say that we posses free will. Determinism is a highly debated topic, in fact this week on infidelguy there is a good show on it. Which you could call in and pose questions to a determinst. I have read alot about this subject and our current efforts in the scientific realm. Some scientist feel its a dead end street, that we will never locate a self inside the brain. Others like Dr. Susan Greenfield, believe we do have a self and are currently using brain imaging to better understand the brain and ourselves. Just recently scientist have learned more about empathy, which they call 'mirror nuerons'. In essence, the ability to read minds. Its fascinating, and it could very well hold many answers. It could provide legitamate proof of a supernatural element. I reserve my final judgement until further research is made on the subject. My answer to you is, I believe in a self. What the self is composed of or where it resides I do not know. My idea of a self is not necessarily in line with your theistic views, so my answer will be Yes and No

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Mel [/quote]
hey mel,

id like to question some of those answers if it is ok (by e-mail if you feel more comfortable).

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Apr 28 2005, 10:04 AM']Oh yeah Mel, I need all the reason of why you claim that Noah's Ark did not exists.  So please explain further in as much detail as possible.  Thanks.[/quote]
Lets start with the earth being covered with water. The geological record does not support this. In fact it contradicts it greatly and proves a huge hurdle for the flood to have occured. The fossil record is its undoing, but not alone. Lets take for example the egyptians. Who were thriving throughout this time the flood should have occured and not only do they not record any of this. But, they were not wiped out like they should have been.

National Geographic has been looking to prove the flood for many years now. The best they have at the moment is a localized flood theory. Where water came from the mediterranean and into the black sea . A great documentary series on this is out , here is a site link: [url="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html"]Search For Noah's Ark (National Geographic)[/url]

I have gone through alot of appologetic sites about this including listening to debates with creationist. Here are some interesting links that are creationist friendly

[url="http://sermonaudio.com/main.asp"]Sermon Audio[/url]

[url="http://www.trueorigin.org/"]True Origins - Creationist site directly refuting Talk Origins[/url]


Now on to the ark. At the height of ship building, the greatest builders of ships found huge limitations with working with wood. What happens to a large wooden ship is that, as it bends continually, it causes the wood to loose its shape and eventually break. This problem prevented ships from ever being close to the size of noahs ark. So ship builders turned to metal , because it would bend but go back to its shape. For noah to build a ship as large as he built, which I believe is bigger than the titanic. It would have to be able to defy what the greastest ship builders could not do.

Animals are a huge hurdle for the story aswell. Considering all our vast species on earth and those that are only found in specific regions. The limited size of the ark would give it a very low portion of animals to have on board, not including insects. Lets note aswell that the ark did not contain any form of plants. We are left with a problem on how to explain animals like the Koala. Koalas only live in austrialia, there diet is limited to only a few subspecies of eucalyptus. How did the koalas get to austrailia? Now the creationist theory as it stands is that every animal has evolved from roughly 2000 species that were present on the ark. That animals contain all the dna , prepackaged to evolved into the varying species you see. That nothing is added to the genetic code, and that it uses this prepackaged dna which contains all these variations you see in animals. These theories are on the fringe. Essentially they have more in common with ufologist than they do with science. In fact, most of the literature used in creationism uses other creationist literature as references. Most often , it boils down to attacks on science as a vast conspiracy to see religion fall. Thats as best as it gets.

Lastly, I'd like to touch on various flood myths. We have indeed countless flood mths from all around the world. The most famous besides noah is the story of Gilgamesh. It is striking how similar the stories are. It boils down to the question which story came first. The main argument is that , while the sumerian tablets predate the torah, it is possible that the oral tradition of the flood story was before the dates we have of the tablets.

[url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html"]Various Flood myths from around the world[/url]

[url="http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/073.html"]THE Flood narrative from the gilgamesh epic[/url]

I hope this helps explain my position.

in Reason...

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Apr 28 2005, 03:37 PM'] hey mel,

id like to question some of those answers if it is ok (by e-mail if you feel more comfortable). [/quote]
Sure infinite, but I'm not promissing I will always respond

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 28 2005, 08:11 PM'] Sure infinite, but I'm not promissing I will always respond [/quote]
lol, MC Hawking

[infinitelord1]

hey mel,

nvm........ill just ask you a question..........do you believe life always existed? Disregarding any alien forms of life in older parts of the universe (if you believe in that sort of thing). Im talking about life on earth.

[Timothy]

Mel,

I have my response pretty much ready to post, but first I must have this answered. Why do you cliam the Egyptians were around at the time of the flood?

[quote]Lets take for example the egyptians. Who were thriving throughout this time the flood should have occured and not only do they not record any of this. But, they were not wiped out like they should have been. [/quote]

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Apr 29 2005, 12:56 PM'] Mel,

I have my response pretty much ready to post, but first I must have this answered. Why do you cliam the Egyptians were around at the time of the flood?

[/quote]
Well the accepted date of noahs flood is around 2100-2350 BCE . The egyptians were building pyramids during the time frame the flood should have occured.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Apr 29 2005, 01:30 PM'] Well the accepted date of noahs flood is around 2100-2350 BCE . The egyptians were building pyramids during the time frame the flood should have occured. [/quote]
Really? I am not doubting you but would like a source for my own future reference.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 29 2005, 01:39 PM'] Really? I am not doubting you but would like a source for my own future reference. [/quote]
Eygptian Timelines

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/timeline.shtml"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egypt.../timeline.shtml[/url]
[url="http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/timeline.html"]http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egy...y/timeline.html[/url]
[url="http://www.musesrealm.net/egypt/timeline.html"]http://www.musesrealm.net/egypt/timeline.html[/url]

Torah Timelines

[url="http://www.akhlah.com/history_tradition/torah_timeline.php"]http://www.akhlah.com/history_tradition/torah_timeline.php[/url]
[url="http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/timpersp.cfm"]http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/timpersp.cfm[/url]
[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm[/url]

[Paphnutius]

You reference me to a site to help Jewish kids learn? , point taken.

[Timothy]

'Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all.' Luke 17:26-27

[b]Local vs Global Flood[/b]

Many Christians today claim that the Flood of Noah's time was only a local flood. They claim it was confined to somewhere around the Mesopotamian region and never really covered the whole earth. The discovery of a layer of mud by archaeologists in the Middle East and more recently the finding of evidence for a local flood in the Black Sea have both been claimed as evidence for a (local) biblical flood.

People generally want a local flood because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interprets the fossils under our feet as the history of the sequential appearance of life over eons of time.

Scientists once understood the fossils (which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand) to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept the evolutionary billions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the Flood-hence their belief in a local flood, or none at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, they would see the abundant evidence for the Flood. As someone quipped, 'I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it.'

There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them. Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. Polystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata. The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession. The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent. Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water. That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the 'clastic' dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.

The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood. The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that 'the present is the key to the past'-there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers. In reality, God's revelation about the past is the key to understanding the present.

The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood.10,11

The problem is not the evidence but the mindset of those looking at the evidence. One geologist testified how he never saw any evidence for the Flood-until, as a Christian, he was convinced from the Bible that the Flood must have been a global cataclysm. Now he sees the evidence everywhere. The Bible talks about people being corrupted in their thinking after turning their backs on God (Romans 1:18ff.) and of people being so spiritually blind that they cannot see the obvious (Acts 28:25-27).

[b]Where the all that water came from[/b]

The Bible gives us much information about where the waters came from and where they went. The sources of the water are given in Genesis 7:11 as "the fountains of the great deep" and the "windows of heaven."

The "fountains of the great deep" are mentioned before the "windows of heaven," indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
What are the "fountains of the great deep?" This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11. "Fountains of the deep" is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. "The great deep" is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean; Amos 7:4, where God's fire of judgement is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans; and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God's justice/judgement. "The deep" is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g., Genesis 1:2; Job 38:30, 41:32; Psalm 42:7, 104:6; Isaiah 51:10, 63:13; Ezekiel 26:19; Jonah 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Ezekiel 31:4, 15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated "fountains" means "fountain, spring, well." So, the "fountains of the great deep" are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the flood account, it could mean both.

If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters, then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.
Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the flood began, there was a "breaking up" of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.

There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record -- layers that were obviously deposited during Noah's flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.[3] This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding -- perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep."


During the Flood, the world was deluged in 40 days of rain. But this was not the major source of the Flood waters

The other source of the waters for Noah's flood was "the windows of heaven." Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously.
Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on the earth until the time of the flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this, so we should not be dogmatic.

The expression "windows of heaven" is used twice in reference to the flood (Genesis 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: twice in 2 Kings 7:2 and 19, referring to God's miraculous intervention in sending rain, and once in Malachi 3:10, where the phrase is used again of God intervening to pour out abundant blessings on his people. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.

[b]Building the ark was possible[/b]

Go here to learn all about that [url="http://www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm"]here[/url]




[b]Animals kind vs species & what was actually taken[/b]


Again, no where in the Bible does it say that Noah was to load a pair of each 'species'. The Bible is clear that it was 'kinds', not 'species'.
In the original Hebrew, the word for 'beast' and 'cattle' in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for 'creeping things' is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles. Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.


However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah's business. Noah did not need to take plants either-many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.

Noah had to take only land vertebrates aboard-marine creatures, plants and invertebrates could survive off the Ark
What is a 'kind'? God created a number of different types of animals with much capacity for variation within limits. The descendants of each of these different kinds, apart from humans, would today mostly be represented by a larger grouping than what is called a species. In most cases, those species descended from a particular original kind would be grouped today within what modern taxonomists (biologists who classify living things) call a genus (plural genera).


One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic mating, so the 'kind' may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the 'kind' with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.


For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind.


[b]Genesis is the original and only Truth[/b]

It makes more sense that Genesis was the original and the pagan myths arose as distortions of that original account. While Moses lived long after the event, he probably acted as the editor of far older sources. For example, Genesis 10:19 gives matter-of-fact directions, 'as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim'. These were the cities of the plain God destroyed for their extreme wickedness 500 years before Moses. Yet Genesis gives directions at a time when they were well-known landmarks, not buried under the Dead Sea.

It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. The liberals also commonly assert that monotheism is a late evolutionary religious development. The Bible teaches that mankind was originally monotheistic. Archaeological evidence suggests the same, indicating that only later did mankind degenerate into idolatrous pantheism.10

For instance, in Genesis, God's judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.

The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis.9 This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn't been invented by Moses' time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.

Edited May 2, 2005 by Timothy

[Timothy]

Just wanted to put a comment on here so the thread wouldn't fall off the first page

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Timothy' date='Apr 29 2005, 12:56 PM']Mel,

I have my response pretty much ready to post, but first I must have this answered.  Why do you cliam the Egyptians were around at the time of the flood?

[/quote]
Now when you told me you were going to write something, I was very excited. Only to find that you resorted to a cut and paste job. In fact, you stole most of this material from [url="http://www.answersingenesis.org"]http://www.answersingenesis.org[/url] . It would probably have been eaiser for you to just shoot me that link and attempt to answer some of the questions I've posed to you. At the very least , I expected your take on the debate, instead of other peoples words pasted. You did not include one word of your own, every sentence was cut from one of these links. I have serious doubts that you even understand what you are defending. Regardless, I will post a reply to answersingenesis's creationist arguments before the weekend.


[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ok/global10.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/...ook/flood12.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.ikrist.com/cgi-bin/npublish/viewnews.cgi?id=1080566144"]http://www.ikrist.com/cgi-bin/npublish/vie...i?id=1080566144[/url]
[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp[/url]
[url="http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-how_did_all_the_animals_fit_on_noahs_ark.html"]http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/cs-h..._noahs_ark.html[/url]
[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp[/url]


Regards,
Mel

[Timothy]

Mel, all I did was put together a detailed factual document that hopefully answered your questions. I have never claimed to be a great author, but if I can find information and put it together for you so that you will have an easier time finding the Truth. What is wrong with that? As a matter of fact I even gave the link in the post. So, I really don’t see why you are so disappointed with everything, but hope and pray that Christ will allow your veil to be lifted. As for my understanding of the subject, I also continue to pray for a greater understanding of the Truth. That each day Christ will open new doors which will nurture and grow my understanding and love for Him. Your prayers for my greater understanding of the Truth are always appreciated. God Bless.

Edited May 3, 2005 by Timothy