Summations Only

Your opinion about the Bible is just your silly opinion, coyote. You have no basis for judging it as myth, that's just your silly uninformed opinion. You can't impose your opinion on me as fact because it isn't fact. My opinion is that the Bible is nothing but truth and that whatever it says about the physical world is true and can serve as the launching pad for real-world science. Sorry, all you have is an uninformed opinion, best to keep it to yourself.

You want to get into the details but the evidence I'm claiming is the strata and the fossils. That's ENORMOUS evidence for the Flood. In all the evidence we've discussed if we gave it all a weight value, the strata and the fossils should weigh in heavier than all the others combined. Your silly idea that it failed is what fails.

They also didn't really believe the Bible because their theories didn't fit the Bible, but the POINT WAS THAT NOBODY SAID THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE BIBLE. That's the point, acknowledge it instead of racing on to some other point.

You live in your own weird world, you make up your own evidence, you make up the failure of the Flood, you make up your own interpretation of the Bible, you try to hold others to your own idiosyncratic opinions as if they had some kind of special authority. I don't know why anybody pays attention to anything you say.

As I keep saying the theories they came up with were UNBIBLICAL, that's why they gave way to the "evidence" that proved their wrong theories wrong. They WEREN'T BIBLICAL.Sheesh.The only reason I mentioned that former scientists believed the Bible or said they did was to show that it's NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH SCIENCE.Sheesh.I've got to get out of here.

Could I persuade you to stop and think for half a second? The point I was making about the earlier creationist scientists is that they came up with theories about geology and biology that were not biblical, that actually contradicted the Bible. Weird ideas about fossils that violate the nature of God in the Bible, or the idea that adapted creatures in isolated places were separately created in that condition, which violates the Biblical fact that God finished the Creation in six days and then rested and doesn't create anything any more.When I said today's creationism doesn't violate the Bible that's what I meant. I didn't mean the Bible provides an entire theory of geology or biology, just that the little it does say is not contradicted by today's creationists.Mountain building by tectonic pressure after the Flood contradicts nothing in the Bible and in fact supports the usual understanding that the pre-Flood mountains were not very high. The rapidity involved does of course contradict Old Earth geology. But not the Bible.Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution, it's the ToE that's wrong. All you have to do is isolate some portion of a population for a few years to see that great changes will occur in that short period of time. And of course rapid evolution is what would have to happen to explain the enormous diversity that occurred after the Flood that spread out to all parts of the world. There is certainly no contradiction with the Bible in that view. With the ToE, yes, because they don't know what they are talking about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The "braking system" isn't magical, it's how genetics MUST play out normally. Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated. All this happens in reality, it's only the ToE that denies the reality.

The "braking system" isn't magical, it's how genetics MUST play out normally because developing new phenotypes requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes. This is the "braking system," it's a necessary part of evolution itself. Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated. All this happens in reality, it's only the ToE that denies the reality.

In lots of places, starting with Genesis 2:1 and 2: "Finished" it says, "ended" it says. And this ending is emphasized everywhere the Sabbath rest is presented as an ordinance, which is in lots of places in the Bible. Most Protestant Christians understand this resting from work as provided in the sacrifice of Christ, in the teaching that we cannot work for our salvation but are saved by abiding or resting in Him who did it all for us. I don't recall calling it "biblical" -- did I? I thought I said modern creationism doesn't CONTRADICT the Bible, and went on from there to say that mountain building is consistent with lower mountains being what the Flood had to surmount in the pre-Flood world. If I did use the term "biblical" it would have been in this sense only, or in the sense that modern creationism bases all its arguments on the Biblical foundation, which is different from saying the arguments are IN the Bible. But perhaps it would be clearer to keep saying it doesn't contradict the Bible. See above, and mountain-building fits the geological facts and doesn't contradict the Bible, which is all I was saying. Aardvarks playing cards have nothing to do with either. There is. Pod Mrcaru lizards, different breeds of dogs in different parts of the world that occurred just by being isolated there, same with different breeds of cattle, same with two different kinds of wildebeests, same with different bears in different parts of the world, same with Darwin's finches and his Galapagos turtles, same with every different population in a ring species, same with different races of humanity, everywhere but particularly where small populations were isolated such as in Iceland. You could multiply these examples for most species. The evidence is everywhere, but the ToE manages to make up the wrong explanations for it. Yes, the poor dears have been laboring under a deceitful theory which is so hedged about by official authority that they are deprived of the truth. Poor dears. If they weren't so busy looking at the trees maybe they could raise their sights and see what is really there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We need to be clear what exactly creation is. I guess the first thing I'd say is that you can use the term strictly or you can use it loosely and your examples are all of using it loosely. The Creation of Genesis 1 is about the creation of the world and all living things -- NEW -- things that had never existed before -- created out of nothing. Flies and frogs were created new then too, so it's not creation when they are made to appear in the plagues of Egypt. Miracle OK but not creation. Loaves and fishes had certainly existed since the creation too, loaves since the creation of humanity anyway. They already existed. When Jesus does the miracle He doesn't bring anything new into existence, He miraculously multiplied things that were already in existence.Manna is the only thing that could maybe be considered created in the strict sense, but I don't think that's the meaning of that event either. Manna no doubt already existed in heaven and all God did was send it down from heaven to feed the people, so it's really just another miracle.I skimmed your references to "fiery objects" -- not sure about the first one, the second one the destruction of Sodom? The third the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah's sacrifice? I don't see creation here either, again just miracles making use of already-created things, in this case fire. First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam. He created the DNA that all physical bodies possess, and the system that combines the genes from the parents to make the body of the child. So again, there is no creation there, just one of countless expressions or products of the system God created on the sixth day.Your soul, now, that's an interesting question, but I think it has the same answer as the above: I don't think God creates each soul in the same way He created the universe brand new out of nothing. Human souls have already existed since Adam too, so like the human body there has been a pattern or template for the human soul in existence since then too. What God gave you is your very own, the same way He gave you your very own body. He gives us all kinds of things, and things unique or brand-new to each of us, but doesn't create them brand-new out of nothing as He created all things at the Creation. In the loose sense of the term, of course God created you, created you as a unique human being, but all the parts that go into you from all the parts of the body to your soul out of whatever His recipe is for human souls, were already in existence since the original Creation week. No, it turns out to be a semantic problem in the end rather than a real problem about original Creation. Thanks for these questions though. I'd never thought all this through before. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The thing is, the evidence IS the appearance of design, which includes such things as I listed a while back, such as a perfection of form that doesn't occur in random things, and in nonliving nature only in crystals -- at least I can't think of any other examples from nonliving nature. Straightness, perfect circle or near-perfect, any geometric form really, that has perfection or near-perfection, smoothness, uniformity in some cases, irreducible complexity, systems like automobiles and the porcelain factory machinery, that accomplish by complex functions some definable purpose, Dawn's intricate order, in fact orderliness itself, intricacy itself, and I'm sure lots of other qualities that aren't coming to mind. All these we associate with human workmanship, i.e. design, products made for a purpose, so when we also see functioning complex systems that all work together in living things we rightly infer a Designer of those systems. Randomness produces heaps, asymmetries, messy things, lumpiness, imperfect shapes, but coherent functioning things imply a designer,It may be begging the question or circular etc., but there is no way to produce any other evidence for design. But just as we can't come up with evidence it's also true that you can't come up with evidence that evolution can produce things that look designed. You can point to microevoluton which is just the functioning of an existing system, which in itself was designed. You can't come up with evidence that evolution produced that system.So here is an example of you asking evidence of us when you don't have any of your own for your contrary point of view. It's all the mental construct of theory, no actual evidence. We have the construct of Creation and the observation that design is produced by designers. That's more than you have. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you very much for that paragraph detailing the science that got the Nobel Prize. If you typed all that out yourself I'm very grateful, that's very kind. If you merely copied and pasted it, still it was nice of you instead of referring me to the website. No, not at all, these people are doing actual science, not conjuring with evolution. That's why I wanted to see what the prize was given for, and I'm happy to see it was given for actual real bona fide science, not the construction of evolutionary fairytales. Now, they probably also believe in evolution, but they are also no doubt too busy with their scientific work to spend tine criticizing it, too busy looking at the trees to see the forest. Which is understandable. As long as they are doing real science instead of making up stories about stuff dug out of a rock I'm happy. If one of them got a prize for a theory about what killed the dinosaurs I'd probably have to decide the Nobel Prize is a shuck.I'm sure I can forgive you for your next paragraph of nothing but condemnation of me for faults you impute to me that I actually do not have, or the paragraph after that which is a similar straw man rant against creationism.But I do thank you for the list of Nobel winners. Unless I've badly misunderstood the achievements that earned them the prize, it confirms my never-faltering faith in true science.Which evolution isn't.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'd argue that the drop of water is designed, because it's at the molecular level where design does show up in nonliving things, such as in the formation of crystals, or the atom itself. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can't, but I have no doubt that a good understanding of what a worldwide flood would do, how it would deposit sediments, how it would sort corpses, would account for both quite well. Meanwhile there's nothing unscientific about pointing out that the evidence of water-formed strata and the fossilized remains of all the living things in the world is indeed stupendously good support for such a worldwide flood. I'm not completely oblivious to the "sedimentary record." I'm aware that the prevailing theory has to do with many transgressions and regressions of the ocean onto the land, which is constructed from clues in the sediments. It's so close to almost postulating a worldwide flood I have to suspect that the clues they are looking at could probably just as easily support such a flood. Well, the "fossil record" is a construct of the ToE, so asking a Floodist to account for it is unfair in a pretty cheeky way. A Floodist has a single catastrophic event in mind that would order things quite mechanically, according to laws of course, no doubt, but mechanical laws which render the "fossil record" just an artifact of the overactive evolutionist imagination. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It isn't a "braking system," that's somebody else's misnomer which I should have had the foresight to correct. No, the idea is very simple: isolating a smallish number from a larger population produces new gene frequencies. Over time as the smaller population breeds only within its own numbers these new frequencies bring out new phenotypes and over even more time produce a general new look to the population. I figure that's how blue wildebeests formed from black wildebeests. Some black wildebeests got geographically isolated from the herd, inbred among themselves for some number of generations until their collective new set of gene frequencies produced the blue type of wildebeest with all the characteristics that set it apart from the black population.When you have a new smaller population with new gene frequencies you can get some dramatic new traits, but at the same time you get them only by losing the genetic material for competing traits. This is how domestic breeds are formed. Truebred domestic animals may even have all fixed loci for their salient traits, meaning they DON'T have the alleles for every other trait possible to that species. This is the "braking system," the loss of genetic material, which HAS to happen to get new phenotypes. It's inevitable, it's what evolution does, it's how things evolve. It happens with any population split but the smaller the evolving population the easier it is to demonstrate the point.This can all occur in a very short period of time, a few generations if the new population is very small, just enough time to thoroughly mix the new gene frequencies, maybe up to a few hundred years -- but the Pod Mrcaru lizards evolved their new traits in less than thirty years starting from five pairs. This is way too short a time to account for the changes by mutations, which are too slow.It's the natural result of evolution itself, so it's the processes of evolution themselves that eventually bring evolutionary activity to an end. It's not a "braking system," it's the natural playing out of evolution. On any line where evolution is occurring genetic material is being lost as new traits emerge. so evolution itself brings evolution to an end, and shows the ToE to be sheer impossible fantasy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.