Christian Forums

Quote from: Alan on Sat Jan 04, 2025 - 14:10:40Because it's well established and verified fact, wake up already, nothing you say, do, or copy and paste is going to change verified science. You and the other weird people that think like you are falling off a cliff if you continue to keep your mind closed like a trap door. And don't give me any malarkey about faith and scriptures, it's obvious that you manipulate them into what you want them to say.

Words have meaning.  It's one thing to say the current scientific evidence and understanding points to evolution.  Saying "verified fact" is false.  Using the scientific method is impossible at this point for some of this understanding to be verified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxBELafSZJ0

Another great video by Answers in Genesis Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aPDUsbIvA

Dinosaur soft tissue, continues to be an issue, for deep timers. More and more fossils are being found to contain such, it is not a rare occurrence.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Mar 23, 2025 - 10:39:28https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aPDUsbIvA

Dinosaur soft tissue, continues to be an issue, for deep timers. More and more fossils are being found to contain such, it is not a rare occurrence.

lmao, it's an issue for you and your conspiracy groups that don't understand science. 

Quote from: Alan on Mon Mar 24, 2025 - 11:55:27lmao, it's an issue for you and your conspiracy groups that don't understand science. 

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/soft-tissue-in-fossils-cannot-last-for-more-than-30000-years/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteWhen the term "soft tissues" are used they are intended to describe flesh or more specifically, molecular structures of living organisms comprised of proteins. Such proteins decay at known rates and are therefore only detectible for thousands of years. So, when they are found in fossils assumed as being millions of years old then a dilemma emerges: One variable is wrong either the decay rate of proteins or the age of the dinosaur fossil. (Hint: it is the assumption of the age of the fossils and not the known and observable rate of decay in proteins.).

Given the fact that fossils have been laying around for million years, no one expected them to contain soft tissue. Indeed, laboratory studies seem to indicate that soft tissue decays in a matter of 50 weeks or so."

Amanda J. Kear, Derek E. G. Briggs and Desmond T. Donovan, "Decay and fossilization of non-mineralized tissue in coleoid cephalopods," Palaeontology , 38:105-131, 1995
It (is) thought that proteins...break down after only 30,000 years."

Bada, J. et al. , "Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 354:77-87, 1999

Maria McNamara and her colleagues were examining a salamander fossil that is supposed to be 18 million years old. They were shocked to find beautifully-preserved muscle tissue on the bone. They show that the characteristics of the soft tissue are all very similar to the characteristics of the muscle tissue of modern salamanders, and the few differences that do exist are probably the result of "initial, limited decay." Here is a part of what they write in their abstract:
The muscle is preserved organically, in three dimensions, and with the highest fidelity of morphological preservation yet documented from the fossil record...Slight differences between the fossil tissues and their counterparts in extant amphibians reflect limited degradation during fossilization...

Our results provide unequivocal evidence that high-fidelity organic preservation of extremely labile tissues is not only feasible, but likely to be common.


In fact, the truly remarkable thing about this find is that the soft tissue was not even inside the bone. In Schweitzer's finds, the soft tissue was found encased in bone, which at least would provide some level of protection from all the chemical and biological agents that work to degrade soft tissue.

However, this beautifully-preserved soft tissue was sitting on top of the bone, exposed to the sediment.

In conclusion, processes within chemistry and physics limit duration's of decay in observable materials such as muscle, collagen, blood vessels, and red blood cells. We are left with two different possibilities. First option is there is amazing preservation for millions of years of which preservation of such materials even under the most optimum controlled conditions such as freezing or refrigeration still would not be expected to preserve anything for more than perhaps a decade or two. Or the second option, which is the most obvious, is the dating method is completely wrong. These samples simply are not millions of years old, not even one million years old, but are thousands of years old and preservation is still amazing!

We have observed decay rates, and can test such. No one has ever observed or can real time test any proposed theories to save deep time evolutionary imaginings based upon highly questionable dating methods. All of which are themselves based upon what can only be assumptions, regarding conditions on earth remaining the same or stable enough over deep time, for such methods to be accurate. While both YEC's and evolutionists know conditions were very different at one time. Nevertheless as a YEC I understand how faith works, and therefore evolutionists have and exercise a great deal of it regarding their endlessly changing theories to adapt their beliefs to new information which contradicts their previous assumptions.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 04, 2025 - 09:09:37We have observed decay rates, and can test such. No one has ever observed or can real time test any proposed theories to save deep time evolutionary imaginings based upon highly questionable dating methods.

It is really only the YEC with a preconceived notion that the dating methods are highly questionable. The whole scientific community familiar with the dating methods are quite accepting that the method is accurate provided the procedural execution of the testing keeps errors to a minimum.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 04, 2025 - 09:09:37All of which are themselves based upon what can only be assumptions, regarding conditions on earth remaining the same or stable enough over deep time, for such methods to be accurate.

The stability of the chemical, physical and biological processes are pretty well established. The "fine tuning" of such processes that is absolutely necessary for this universe to even exist as we now observe it provides the proof of that stability.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 04, 2025 - 09:09:37While both YEC's and evolutionists know conditions were very different at one time.

Different conditions, yes.  Different processes, no!!  God's natural law has not changed.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 04, 2025 - 09:09:37Nevertheless as a YEC I understand how faith works, and therefore evolutionists have and exercise a great deal of it regarding their endlessly changing theories to adapt their beliefs to new information which contradicts their previous assumptions.

Perhaps you could provided some or one of those "endlessly changing theories to adapt their beliefs to new information which contradicts their previous assumptions". In doing so, please point out the contradictions that you are referring to.

And BTW, I am not at all convinced that you "understand how faith works", particularly as it relates to the fields of science.

Pushing on consensus is a poor reasoning method.  Accurate is highly subjective when you realize the method is a model and depends on many assumptions that may not be correct across the board. 

Models are useful, but when it is a model, accuracy is not guaranteed

QuoteIt is really only the YEC with a preconceived notion that the dating methods are highly questionable. The whole scientific community familiar with the dating methods are quite accepting that the method is accurate provided the procedural execution of the testing keeps errors to a minimum.

How does actually using these methods to date objects we actually know the dates of, producing dates far and away older than the known date, equal preconcieved notion? Not to mention many erratic and different results regarding the same specimens? This is apart of course from the admitted very different world both parties agree existed at one time. Which may very well cause major problems for these dating methods, seeing that none of us really know just how different things were. We do know that life was certainly a lot more abundant, and apparently much larger than plants and animals today. While we actually live off of the energy we produce from extraordinarily huge reserves of plants and animal remains which were buried and compressed with pressure and heat which formed the massive reserves of coal and oils we have been, do now, and will continue to use for a long time yet. If the radical climate changers do not get their way.

https://www.grisda.org/radiocarbon-dating

Quote below from link above.

Quote5. How would carbon-14 dating be affected by a global flood?

Carbon-14 dating depends on the amount of atmospheric carbon-14 relative to carbon-12. This ratio would have been different before the Flood. The earth's sediments contain a vast amount of carbon-12 in the form of coal and oil. [14] The amount of 14C in coal and oil is much less than in the present environment. If a significant portion of the coal and oil represents organisms that were deposited in a global flood, then the pre-flood atmosphere must have contained much less 14C and more 12C than the present atmosphere. If the rate of production of 14C were no greater before the flood than it is now, the pre-flood 14C would have been greatly diluted by the vast amount of pre-flood 12C. This would cause any pre-flood organic material to have a 14C date much older than the actual calendar date. After the flood, a new equilibrium concentration of 14C would be established over a period of time. [15] Plants and animals that lived during the time when the new equilibrium was being established would show old 14C ages, converging on calendar time over a period approximating a thousand years. [16]

More links to sites addressing the problems with dating methods.

https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/dating-methods/

https://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

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

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/u-pb-radioisotope-dating-method-problems/

https://www.icr.org/content/dating-gap

As usual, where one places their faith, is the real determining factor regarding old or young earth theories.

QuoteThe stability of the chemical, physical and biological processes are pretty well established. The "fine tuning" of such processes that is absolutely necessary for this universe to even exist as we now observe it provides the proof of that stability.

Exactly as God has and for now does intend it. He however is not bound by such as we are. He has and will again cause major interruptions to such stability according to His word. You deny that He has already interrupted that stability on a global scale before with the global flood. Perhaps you also deny that He will do so again by fire, I do not know. Your faith as just admitted is in what you now observe, according to how you now understand it, as determined by "science" so called. Others have a faith that is in the word of God, regarding a great deal we cannot observe, understand, or presently comprehend. As always, it is a matter of faith.

QuoteDifferent conditions, yes.  Different processes, no!!  God's natural law has not changed.

I understand you have faith in this understanding, yet it is regarding things we cannot presently observe, but only draw conclusions about using various methods which some apparently have great faith in, while others have many questions. Very different conditions alone, could easily account for problems with present dating methods, nevertheless, your above theory is not observable but rather faith based. The bible does mention one very different process from that which we observe today, in that rain was not part of this world's distribution of water in the pre-flood world. Rather a mist came forth from the ground which apparently watered plant life and no doubt affected all life in different ways. This is apart of course from the many apparent dimensions of existence even all around us at present that we have no knowledge of, as they remain unobservable to us. 

QuotePerhaps you could provided some or one of those "endlessly changing theories to adapt their beliefs to new information which contradicts their previous assumptions". In doing so, please point out the contradictions that you are referring to.

That is a good idea. I'll work on that. Here is one from a link I have already provided, just for starters.

https://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

Quote below from link above.

QuoteAt the time that Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published, the earth was "scientifically" determined to be 100 million years old. By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years old. In 1947, science firmly established that the earth was 3.4 billion years old. Finally in 1976, it was discovered that the earth is "really" 4.6 billion years. What happened?

Apart from this for now, I will refer all back to the many articles I posted and addressed on this link in the past, regarding evolutionary scientists seemingly continually finding complexity in life forms further and further back in time. Which as I have repeatedly pointed out, is highly indicative of complexity from the beginning. Not to mention the fact that there basically is not any "simple form of life" as we know today that even a single cell is extremely complex.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 06, 2025 - 08:49:19That is a good idea. I'll work on that. Here is one from a link I have already provided, just for starters.

https://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

Quote below from link above.
 

Apart from this for now, I will refer all back to the many articles I posted and addressed on this link in the past, regarding evolutionary scientists seemingly continually finding complexity in life forms further and further back in time. Which as I have repeatedly pointed out, is highly indicative of complexity from the beginning. Not to mention the fact that there basically is not any "simple form of life" as we know today that even a single cell is extremely complex.

Amo, I would strongly suggest that in all or the study and reading that you do, you pick up some books or seek out some sources to give you just a hint of what science is really all about and how scientific positions get established.  Based upon the quote you presented, no such positions could ever be presented for fear that they might need to be upgraded or altered later.  Given such a position, the article you referenced would have never been published since contrary to what far too many skeptics like to say, the science is never set or finished.  How do you think we got from an earth centric view of our solar system to a heliocentric view?  And also up until about 100 years ago, the milky way was thought to be the entire universe.  How did that get corrected? Your approach to science would not have allowed any such correction to be posted.

With respect to the subject of radiometric dating methods, I would offer the following to supplement what you have been reading:

https://reasons.org/?s=radiometric+dating+methods

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 06, 2025 - 14:15:57Amo, I would strongly suggest that in all or the study and reading that you do, you pick up some books or seek out some sources to give you just a hint of what science is really all about and how scientific positions get established.  Based upon the quote you presented, no such positions could ever be presented for fear that they might need to be upgraded or altered later.  Given such a position, the article you referenced would have never been published since contrary to what far too many skeptics like to say, the science is never set or finished.  How do you think we got from an earth centric view of our solar system to a heliocentric view?  And also up until about 100 years ago, the milky way was thought to be the entire universe.  How did that get corrected? Your approach to science would not have allowed any such correction to be posted.

With respect to the subject of radiometric dating methods, I would offer the following to supplement what you have been reading:

https://reasons.org/?s=radiometric+dating+methods

There is nothing wrong at all with updating theories according to increased information. It is a most crucial part of real science. There is something wrong though, with unfounded confidence in theories everyone knows may even radically change over time in accordance with new increased information. And continuing to present theories as scientific facts, when they simply are not. As has been proved over and over again by the changes rightly made as knowledge has increased.

Again, and again, I must repeat the fact of the matter relating to one's faith. Evolutionists simply will not admit that their scientific observations which they so very often present as scientific fact, are nothing more than their personal faith in their theory, of deep time evolution. They do not do real objective and unbiased scientific research, but rather do research to prove their faith in deep time evolutionary theory. Just as YEC's do the same regarding the biblical account of creation, which we gladly admit of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9xnsOtSjak

Good video about contradictions within the theory of evolution.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 07, 2025 - 11:33:16They do not do real objective and unbiased scientific research, but rather do research to prove their faith in deep time evolutionary theory. Just as YEC's do the same regarding the biblical account of creation, which we gladly admit of.

Oh my!!!  It is not the scientific community that fails to real objective and unbiased scientific research; rather there none who fail so miserably to do real objective and unbiased "scientific research" as those who seek out the few instances that support their interpretation of the Genesis account of creation than the YEC. And let's face it, the entire YEC explanation of the history of the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with determining and understanding the actual history of the universe; it has to do only with supporting a very questionable interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

It never ceases to amaze me, and pathetically so, that the YEC view presents God as incapable of creation in the manner depicted by the overwhelming mass of data and information that has been made available by God Himself to the scientific community today. 

There is no such thing as people practicing unbiased science. 

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 05:20:50There is no such thing as people practicing unbiased science. 

True enough. The issue in every case is what the bias is. Being biased is not necessarily wrong or bad.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 04:56:09Oh my!!!  It is not the scientific community that fails to real objective and unbiased scientific research; rather there none who fail so miserably to do real objective and unbiased "scientific research" as those who seek out the few instances that support their interpretation of the Genesis account of creation than the YEC. And let's face it, the entire YEC explanation of the history of the universe has nothing whatsoever to do with determining and understanding the actual history of the universe; it has to do only with supporting a very questionable interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

It never ceases to amaze me, and pathetically so, that the YEC view presents God as incapable of creation in the manner depicted by the overwhelming mass of data and information that has been made available by God Himself to the scientific community today. 

A few instances? There is the bias front and center.

Fossil records alone destroy the few instances biased statement. Massive fossil graveyards the world over, filled with countless billions of microscopic, sea, plant, and animal fossils, most obviously rapidly buried under extremely watery  conditions alone, destroys that biased statement. Providing of course billions of observable evidences which can and do support the biblical narrative of the global flood.

If evolutionists do not want to accept this evidence as such, and give their own faith based theory for their existence that is one thing. But to deny that such is perfectly good evidence supporting a global flood narrative is unquestionably faith based bias. As the evidence most certainly would be the exactly what one should expect concerning a global flood. Reject the theory if you wish, but there is no denying that this evidence definitely supports the theory. So we'll start with these billions of observable artifacts of evidence which themselves totally trash the "a few instances" biased claim.

One more while we are at it in this post. Huge deposits of evenly and smoothly layered sedimentary rock the world over. Which is also evidence fully supporting rapid layering and sedimentation without time for erosion between layers, as would occur during deep time slow sedimentation layering scenarios. Again, exactly what one would expect from a global flood scenario. Reject it if you will according to your own faith and or bias, but it cannot be denied that such is evidence supporting a global flood scenario.

We might as well address the issue of all the fossil trees as well, which have most obviously been buried rapidly in upright positions going through several layers of rock which simply could not have taken deep time to form. Having little to no erosion between them, and of course the tree itself which would have never remained upright, let alone at all over the deep times suggested for such layers as it goes through to form.

So, there are quite frankly billions of existing and observable artifacts and geographical evidences for you right here concerning just these three matters. Which you may choose to ignore or contest according to your own faith and or bias, but which, you cannot deny as actual evidence expected to exist if the YEC understanding of a global flood according to our own faith be true.

So much for your "just a few instances" statement.

You may take all of these observable evidences, and come up with your own faith based or biased explanations which contradict YEC's, but this in no way, shape, or form, discounts them as obvious evidences for a global flood as well. Nor would I bother telling you that your faith based theory, only has a few instances to draw upon, as I know and understand that evolutionist have been developing and redeveloping there theory for a long time now. Applying different explanations according to their own faith.

Perhaps I will continue to offer more evidences for YEC beliefs in other posts. Although I do believe that I have made my point, and I have already been presenting one evidence after another on these boards for many years now.   

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20A few instances? There is the bias front and center.

Fossil records alone destroy the few instances biased statement. Massive fossil graveyards the world over, filled with countless billions of microscopic, sea, plant, and animal fossils, most obviously rapidly buried under extremely watery  conditions alone, destroys that biased statement. Providing of course billions of observable evidences which can and do support the biblical narrative of the global flood.

There is indeed evidence of flooding in much, if not most, of the today land areas.  There is no evidence whatsoever that such floods occurred at the same 140-day timeframe some six to ten thousand years ago.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20If evolutionists do not want to accept this evidence as such, and give their own faith based theory for their existence that is one thing. But to deny that such is perfectly good evidence supporting a global flood narrative is unquestionably faith based bias.

There is no such evidence - faith based or otherwise.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20As the evidence most certainly would be the exactly what one should expect concerning a global flood.

Actually, no one really knows what one should expect concerning a global flood.  Particularly a flood that engulfed the entire globe in miles and miles deep water in the course of 40 days and 40 nights and then disappeared in the next 100 days.  There is no scientific explanation of such an event.  If such a thing happened, it would have been entirely a God-produced miraculous phenomenon having no scientific explanation at all.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20Reject the theory if you wish, but there is no denying that this evidence definitely supports the theory. So we'll start with these billions of observable artifacts of evidence which themselves totally trash the "a few instances" biased claim.

For every observable artifact of evidence which you think supports your theory, there are thousands of observable artifacts of evidence in opposition to your theory.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20One more while we are at it in this post. Huge deposits of evenly and smoothly layered sedimentary rock the world over. Which is also evidence fully supporting rapid layering and sedimentation without time for erosion between layers, as would occur during deep time slow sedimentation layering scenarios. Again, exactly what one would expect from a global flood scenario. Reject it if you will according to your own faith and or bias, but it cannot be denied that such is evidence supporting a global flood scenario.

In nearly every case of those layering scenarios there are both marine-based deposits and desert-based deposits making up those layers. That simply cannot be the result of a one-time occurrence of a flood.  Again, there is no scientific evidence of a global flood that occurred over the span of 140 days and then disappeared.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 08, 2025 - 12:45:20Perhaps I will continue to offer more evidences for YEC beliefs in other posts. Although I do believe that I have made my point, and I have already been presenting one evidence after another on these boards for many years now. 

And again, for every indication you can produce for your YEC beliefs, there are thousands upon thousands of indications that exist the absolutely rebut your YEC beliefs.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 10, 2025 - 04:18:55There is indeed evidence of flooding in much, if not most, of the today land areas.  There is no evidence whatsoever that such floods occurred at the same 140-day timeframe some six to ten thousand years ago.
There is no such evidence - faith based or otherwise.
Actually, no one really knows what one should expect concerning a global flood.  Particularly a flood that engulfed the entire globe in miles and miles deep water in the course of 40 days and 40 nights and then disappeared in the next 100 days.  There is no scientific explanation of such an event.  If such a thing happened, it would have been entirely a God-produced miraculous phenomenon having no scientific explanation at all.
For every observable artifact of evidence which you think supports your theory, there are thousands of observable artifacts of evidence in opposition to your theory.
In nearly every case of those layering scenarios there are both marine-based deposits and desert-based deposits making up those layers. That simply cannot be the result of a one-time occurrence of a flood.  Again, there is no scientific evidence of a global flood that occurred over the span of 140 days and then disappeared.
And again, for every indication you can produce for your YEC beliefs, there are thousands upon thousands of indications that exist the absolutely rebut your YEC beliefs.

Delusional is as delusional does, or writes I reckon.

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 11, 2025 - 07:47:51Delusional is as delusional does, or writes I reckon.

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? 2 For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. 3 He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

Are you perhaps speaking of the delusion that the heavens and the earth were created about six to ten thousand years ago?  Or perhaps you were speaking of the delusion that the flood of Noah was a global flood covering the earth with miles deep water.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 10, 2025 - 04:18:55There is indeed evidence of flooding in much, if not most, of the today land areas.  There is no evidence whatsoever that such floods occurred at the same 140-day timeframe some six to ten thousand years ago.
There is no such evidence - faith based or otherwise.
Actually, no one really knows what one should expect concerning a global flood.  Particularly a flood that engulfed the entire globe in miles and miles deep water in the course of 40 days and 40 nights and then disappeared in the next 100 days.  There is no scientific explanation of such an event.  If such a thing happened, it would have been entirely a God-produced miraculous phenomenon having no scientific explanation at all.
For every observable artifact of evidence which you think supports your theory, there are thousands of observable artifacts of evidence in opposition to your theory.
In nearly every case of those layering scenarios there are both marine-based deposits and desert-based deposits making up those layers. That simply cannot be the result of a one-time occurrence of a flood.  Again, there is no scientific evidence of a global flood that occurred over the span of 140 days and then disappeared.
And again, for every indication you can produce for your YEC beliefs, there are thousands upon thousands of indications that exist the absolutely rebut your YEC beliefs.

I would take a look at this as it clearly shows the dinosaurs running then swimming away as the flood waters overtake them...
https://abcnews.go.com/International/tens-thousands-dinosaur-footprints-swim-tracks-found-south/story?id=128141949

Quote from: Hobie on Fri Dec 12, 2025 - 09:10:31I would take a look at this as it clearly shows the dinosaurs running then swimming away as the flood waters overtake them...
https://abcnews.go.com/International/tens-thousands-dinosaur-footprints-swim-tracks-found-south/story?id=128141949

Even if that is the case, that says nothing about that flood being part of a global flood.

That article also indicates that flood was between 145 million years ago and 66 million years ago. That is hardly consistent with anything said in the bible about Noah's flood.  There is nothing in that article that could be said to support the YEC version of anything.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Thu Mar 06, 2025 - 15:15:12Words have meaning.  It's one thing to say the current scientific evidence and understanding points to evolution.  Saying "verified fact" is false.  Using the scientific method is impossible at this point for some of this understanding to be verified.

But there are verified facts concerning the theory of evolution. Given that, it is generally conceded that scientific theories do not provide verified facts.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Dec 12, 2025 - 09:52:13But there are verified facts concerning the theory of evolution. Given that, it is generally conceded that scientific theories do not provide verified facts.

Please list.  There should be very few

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Fri Dec 12, 2025 - 16:25:59Please list.  There should be very few

There are laboratory experiments on bacteria that demonstrate bacteria evolving to survive against antibiotics known to kill the bacteria.  Such experiments can be repeated again and again. For the die-hards against the concept of evolution, this means nothing.  But it does illustrate the biology of how variation can arise within living organisms. These same sorts of experiments beyond the lowly bacteria can be conducted on insects.  And there are field studies demonstrating the adaptation of various species over time. You can make light of such results, but they do add credence to the theory.

My own view of such things is that I have no problem thinking that God is perfectly capable of creating the ability for living creatures to engage in much of the sorts of evolutionary changes through the millions and billions of years that the earth has been in existence. I personally question a lot of what is presented as actual events evolution, but I have no problem that much of it is not far wrong.

The real reason for most adversaries of evolution is their rejection of any belief in an old earth creation concept. Anything that suggests a universe, including the earth, older than a few thousand years must be rejected out of hand.

When God created the universe, He created it with an infrastructure, a set of building materials, rules and specifications that guide the development of the universe. God didn't place gold nuggets in the streams where they have been found or in the veins lower underground where it is mined, but God did create the infrastructure that caused the gold to end up where it did. 

God did not put the Andean Mountain Range all along the western cost of South America, but He did create the infrastructure that brought about the plate tectonic movement that gave rise to that range of mountains.

And none of that was involved a global flood.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 13, 2025 - 13:32:39There are laboratory experiments on bacteria that demonstrate bacteria evolving to survive against antibiotics known to kill the bacteria.  Such experiments can be repeated again and again. For the die-hards against the concept of evolution, this means nothing.  But it does illustrate the biology of how variation can arise within living organisms. These same sorts of experiments beyond the lowly bacteria can be conducted on insects.  And there are field studies demonstrating the adaptation of various species over time. You can make light of such results, but they do add credence to the theory.

My own view of such things is that I have no problem thinking that God is perfectly capable of creating the ability for living creatures to engage in much of the sorts of evolutionary changes through the millions and billions of years that the earth has been in existence. I personally question a lot of what is presented as actual events evolution, but I have no problem that much of it is not far wrong.

The real reason for most adversaries of evolution is their rejection of any belief in an old earth creation concept. Anything that suggests a universe, including the earth, older than a few thousand years must be rejected out of hand.

When God created the universe, He created it with an infrastructure, a set of building materials, rules and specifications that guide the development of the universe. God didn't place gold nuggets in the streams where they have been found or in the veins lower underground where it is mined, but God did create the infrastructure that caused the gold to end up where it did. 

God did not put the Andean Mountain Range all along the western cost of South America, but He did create the infrastructure that brought about the plate tectonic movement that gave rise to that range of mountains.

And none of that was involved a global flood.

This... micro-evolution isn't a theory.  It's demonstrably true.

The question is really whether micro-evolution being factual proves macro-evolution.  It doesn't... but it's enough support that macro-evolution deserves to be a leading and widely-accepted theory... which it is.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sat Dec 13, 2025 - 21:54:22This... micro-evolution isn't a theory.  It's demonstrably true.

Yes, it is demonstrably true.  However, I think that why and how it occurs is a theory.  It is that theory which would lead one to the next level of application, i.e., macro-evolution.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sat Dec 13, 2025 - 21:54:22The question is really whether micro-evolution being factual proves macro-evolution.  It doesn't... but it's enough support that macro-evolution deserves to be a leading and widely-accepted theory... which it is.

EXACTLY!!!!  And that is because the mechanisms leading to micro-evolution are the very same mechanisms at work in macro-evolution.  The physical mechanisms of life is molecular. The molecular mechanisms in single living cells and insects are the same molecular mechanisms in the entire kingdom of living things, from the smallest to the largest.

Micro-evolution isn't really true either. Micro-change is true, just like macro-evolution is not true, but macro change is.

While Micro-change does occur and can be observed under laboratory conditions, it does not demonstrate the increased complexity unto higher being and functionality necessary to the strictly theoretical claims of natural, random chance, undirected, evolution. As far as I know, it always demonstrates a loss of genetic information. Which is certainly not in line with the simple to complex necessities of the theory of Macro-evolution. New information is of course the main problem with the theory of evolution. As there is no evolutionary mechanism to explain such a phenomenon, which is unquestionably a, if not the most crucial element of the origin of life and development mystery. Which many believe they have and or are figuring out, apart from the plain testimony of Holy Scripture in any case.   

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 14, 2025 - 10:00:39Micro-evolution isn't really true either. Micro-change is true, just like macro-evolution is not true, but macro change is.

While Micro-change does occur and can be observed under laboratory conditions, it does not demonstrate the increased complexity unto higher being and functionality necessary to the strictly theoretical claims of natural, random chance, undirected, evolution. As far as I know, it always demonstrates a loss of genetic information. Which is certainly not in line with the simple to complex necessities of the theory of Macro-evolution. New information is of course the main problem with the theory of evolution. As there is no evolutionary mechanism to explain such a phenomenon, which is unquestionably a, if not the most crucial element of the origin of life and development mystery. Which many believe they have and or are figuring out, apart from the plain testimony of Holy Scripture in any case.   

I highlighted the problem with about everything you said there.  It does not result in a loss of genetic information.  It results in a change in genetic information.  I would point out here that that change does not typically result in the elimination of the original, it typically produces another version similar to the original.

And it is pretty clear that you choose to not understand the functional operation of evolution. It is not undirected.  The information necessary to bring about the change was there all along.  It is the "nature" of things as God created.

A part of problem of YEC thinking is that it denies that God could have created the natural laws such that evolution can occur and not only could have but actually did create the natural laws just so. And that because of the incorrect YEC interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The problem is not what God says, it is what the YEC think it says and means.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Dec 15, 2025 - 03:10:20I highlighted the problem with about everything you said there.  It does not result in a loss of genetic information.  It results in a change in genetic information.  I would point out here that that change does not typically result in the elimination of the original, it typically produces another version similar to the original.

And it is pretty clear that you choose to not understand the functional operation of evolution. It is not undirected.  The information necessary to bring about the change was there all along.  It is the "nature" of things as God created.

A part of problem of YEC thinking is that it denies that God could have created the natural laws such that evolution can occur and not only could have but actually did create the natural laws just so. And that because of the incorrect YEC interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. The problem is not what God says, it is what the YEC think it says and means.

YEC's accept what the bible simply states. Christian evolutionists accept what the bible does not state or even suggest anywhere, but only contradicts with six day creation supporting statements.

You assume deep time evolution according to faith in human scientific observations completely void of any biblical support, rather than the most obvious special six day creation Holy Scripture unquestionably promotes. Even though you freely admit, that God was and is in fact easily capable of doing exactly what He has told us He did, in six days. This is your choice, not a necessity according to some proved observable facts concerning the sciences so called, of this world.

Many atheistic evolutionists of course, do not have the faith based luxury Christian evolutionists have, which gives them a way out of many a difficult situation. As God can or did handle any such problems. Nevertheless still, deep time evolution is completely extra biblical, and therefore of another faith. As far as your accusation that I and others simply do not understand evolution, you must admit yourself, that the theory has and does continue to go through many changes which make it hard to keep up with. Not to mention the many disagreements between evolutionists themselves, who already believe each other do not properly understand the theory.

Deep time gradual development from simple to complex is pretty easy to comprehend. Observable and testable scientific examination will either support such a notion, or it will not. The main arguments therefore are based upon whether evidence does or does not support such an idea. Christian evolutionists such as yourself, can always fall back upon the God factor for anything which can't be explained, concerning your version of evolution. Which itself has never even been comprehensibly explained or defined as far as I know. Which gives them a whole lot of wiggle room to claim others simply don't properly understand evolution as they do, which understanding has never even been definitively established. As I have repeatedly asked you and others to do in accordance with your biblically established or even supported views of these evolutionary processes. Which you never have, and I suspect never will, apparently.

https://www.icr.org/article/8194

Quoted article below from link above.

QuotePowerhouse of Scientists Refute Evolution, Part Three

The information of life is in a state of gradual decay, not upward evolution, according to at least eight technical papers published in the proceedings of a unique symposium called Biological Information: New Perspectives.1

Its 23 reports from 29 different authors showed the virtual impossibility of Darwinian selection building biologically meaningful genetic information. The third of three major themes at the symposium centered on "Difficulties in Preventing Erosion of Biological Information," according to a helpful Synopsis of the Symposium proceedings.2

Michael Behe, famous for his book Darwin's Black Box, reviewed reports of mutations that led to new functions. Even these have always led to an overall loss of biological information. But taken altogether, most mutations cause a loss-of-function, like a mutation that erases an enzyme's ability to manipulate a particular sugar. The loss of ability to manipulate that sugar may actually help the organism to survive, for instance, where its enzyme might grab a poisonous chemical that mimics the sugar. The Synopsis reads, "Because loss-of-function mutations inherently involve loss of information, there tends to be a net loss of information even while meaningful adaptation is happening."2 So, even when genetic loss leads to increased survival, information is lost forever.

In another report, plant geneticists Paul Gibson and John Sanford teamed with computation experts John Baumgardner and Wesley Brewer to test whether or not natural selection could preserve biological information, adding to Behe's observations. They found that selection cannot remove what it cannot "see." Most single mutations have little to no effect, so these very slight DNA alterations "accumulate continuously, like rust on a car," according to the Synopsis.2 Thus, evolutionary geneticists are incorrect when they claim that natural selection can somehow preserve biological information. It can't and doesn't.

In his Symposium paper, University of Texas mathematician Granville Sewell tackled the evolutionary argument that an outside energy source can reverse the universal tendency of complicated information systems to decay over time. For example, can mere sunlight entering earth somehow organize the molecules of life or expand the repertoire of living systems? Sewell examined the central formula describing disorganizing systems—one found in standard college thermodynamics textbooks. It shows that order cannot enter a system any faster than it can pass through the boundary between the outside world and that system. Because of this, importing sunlight into a living cell would add no more biological information to it than importing sunlight into a computer would build new software.

Sanford wrote of thermodynamics expert Andy MacIntosh's Symposium paper, "The fallacy is in the assertion that energy on its own can build the necessary machinery of life."2 Some intelligent person, or an intelligently designed machine like a robot, must direct that energy in specific ways to build machines, including those found inside cells.

These qualified scientists examined Darwinian evolution from about two dozen angles, and found a fatal flaw in each one. No living cell can can download or reinstall its original operating system, but it's not too late for scientists and other thinking people to download and install the clear concept that eroding information continually deteriorates living systems—just the opposite of Darwinian evolution's story.

So what is observably untrue about the above conclusions. Can you break it down for us simpletons? Or provide proof of increased information, not just changed information? Thank you.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 15, 2025 - 12:37:01YEC's accept what the bible simply states. Christian evolutionists accept what the bible does not state or even suggest anywhere, but only contradicts with six day creation supporting statements.

Christian evolutionists accepts that the creation "day" of the Genesis creation account is a creation "era" of time span independent of the rotation of the earth about the sun which did not even exist in the very beginning. Such a series of six creation eras then provides a nearly one-to-one match up with that of the observable data and information supplied by God's own natural laws of the physical functioning of the universe.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Dec 15, 2025 - 12:37:01So what is observably untrue about the above conclusions. Can you break it down for us simpletons? Or provide proof of increased information, not just changed information? Thank you.

Most of what you quoted there are arguments against life beginning quite apart from any creative act of God. But true evolutionists do not really present any scientific theories of the initiation of life and treat it as an open question.  Some present various hypotheses, but most admit that there is no supporting scientific information or data.  That is acceptable, since there is no way to present any scientific evidence of even the existence of God, let alone scientific evidence of any of His actions.

As I have said before, the very terminology of "creation science" or creation scientists" is oxymoronic. Science by the very definition and meaning is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. God, being Spirit, likes outside of any such study.  It is only the results of what He has done, not His doing it, that comes within the realm of science and scientific study.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Dec 15, 2025 - 15:22:36Christian evolutionists accepts that the creation "day" of the Genesis creation account is a creation "era" of time span independent of the rotation of the earth about the sun which did not even exist in the very beginning. Such a series of six creation eras then provides a nearly one-to-one match up with that of the observable data and information supplied by God's own natural laws of the physical functioning of the universe.

Like I said, extra biblical only. So how long do you reckon the three eras were, before there was a sun in the fourth era? How do you explain all the events leading up to that time, and including the appearance of plant life the world over, without a Sun? Is not Sun light a crucial element of your evolutionary scenario for the emergence of life?

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Dec 15, 2025 - 15:49:14Most of what you quoted there are arguments against life beginning quite apart from any creative act of God. But true evolutionists do not really present any scientific theories of the initiation of life and treat it as an open question.  Some present various hypotheses, but most admit that there is no supporting scientific information or data.  That is acceptable, since there is no way to present any scientific evidence of even the existence of God, let alone scientific evidence of any of His actions.

As I have said before, the very terminology of "creation science" or creation scientists" is oxymoronic. Science by the very definition and meaning is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. God, being Spirit, likes outside of any such study.  It is only the results of what He has done, not His doing it, that comes within the realm of science and scientific study.

The entire theory of evolution is an attempt to explain just exactly how God created, via the theory itself of course. Which theory causes obvious contradictions to the testimony of Holy Scripture. Are you here then, saying that the idea of natural, undirected, random chance evolution as the mechanism of our existence is certainly wrong. Admittedly then of course also, of a completely different faith, than faith built upon the testimonies of Holy Scripture?

Do you not see the problem and or blatant contradiction between the following verses of Holy Scripture and the theory of deep time evolutionary scenarios?

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.