To Christians who aren't creationists

[The Grand Nudger]

Currently, our biology ( a product of our semi-unique evoltuionary pathway) doesn't allow for 900 year old human beings. Beyond a point we take damage faster than we are able to repair it (and it's such a reliable measure that we can give an estimate of average expected lifespan), assuming that some population once had such an advantageous trait you'd be hard pressed to explain where it went. The quick and dirty mythical answer would be that of a curse, but if we're invoking curses and magic then drop genetics because all deference to biology or evolutionary theory up to that point was pretense.

[DeeTee]

DeeTee Wrote:
The creation account was meant to be taken literally ONLY.
Are you suggesting that the Song of Songs and Revelations should also be taken literally? I take it you are half blind having plucked out one of your sinful eyes already.

I highlighted the words I spoke and as you can see I made no mention of the Song of Solomon or Revelation. Your big leap just shows you can't deal with the topic.

---

Currently, our biology ( a product of our semi-unique evoltuionary pathway) doesn't allow for 900 year old human beings. Beyond a point we take damage faster than we are able to repair it (and it's such a reliable measure that we can give an estimate of average expected lifespan), assuming that some population once had such an advantageous trait you'd be hard pressed to explain where it went. The quick and dirty mythical answer would be that of a curse, but if we're invoking curses and magic then drop genetics because all deference to biology or evolutionary theory up to that point was pretense.

Let me remind you that God limited the lifespan of man twice, so this is no surprise. The evidence for long lifespans can be found but again, if one takes the evidence from the quoted words and tries to apply it to a time where that limitation was not in effect, then they would just end up with the wrong information and conclusion.

you need to find a body from the pre-flood world and test it then use that evidence before drawing any conclusions.

[Faith No More]

Before you go invoking pre-flood humans, can you prove that a flood on a global scale occurred using geological evidence interpreted by someone not operating under the intention of proving the biblical account as fact?

[Jackalope]

Before you go invoking pre-flood humans, can you prove that a flood on a global scale occurred using geological evidence interpreted by someone not operating under the intention of proving the biblical account as fact?

I personally would care more about the research methodology and review process than the motivation of the researcher. We all have inherent bias, so how we control for it is important.

[DeeTee]

Before you go invoking pre-flood humans, can you prove that a flood on a global scale occurred using geological evidence interpreted by someone not operating under the intention of proving the biblical account as fact?

The bolded words show the unrealistic nature of evolutionists. They want someone who is an unbeliever to go against his or her unbelief and prove the Bible true. They also have the audacity to be further unrealistic by restricting the evidence to a field that is rife with subjectivity and impossible to verify its conclusions.

First, you would have to be able to distinguish what evidence on geological formation belonged to a local flood and what belonged to a global one. Since there was only 1 global flood in all of history, it is highly unlikely any of you could identify such evidence.

Second, your restrictions show your dishonesty. You know as well as I that such evidence is left to the personal opinion of the person doing the study and since evolutionary thinking people do not want to prove the Bible true, it would be hard to find 1 person willing to be honest enough to contradict their own unbelief.

Third, Since there are no ancient mss. recording the damage made by the global flood where do you suppose you would get verification from? Evolutionists can make their claims without verification so can creationists.

Fourth, Your restrictions also demonstrate the very close-minded nature of evolutionists. They have to tilt the playing field in their favor just so they have an excuse to justify their decision to lead a sinful life. Not only do these restrictions show the unfairness of the evolutionist, it also demonstrates their fear that they may learn that their ideas are wrong.

We have evidence for Noah's flood and no amount of trickery on the part of the evolutionist will change the truth. The global flood happened as the Bible states.

As a P.S. Such a request with its unrealistic restrictions only goes to show that the evolutionist refuses to be honest in their research. They take a person's body that is under the limitation of 70 years of life (+/-) and then declare that humans cannot live for 900 years thus they conclude that the Bible is false. That is dishonest work and not real objective scientific scholarship.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I highlighted the words I spoke and as you can see I made no mention of the Song of Solomon or Revelation.

Then let me rephrase my response as two related questions. First, why should I take the Genesis literally when other parts of the bible are more clearly symbolic in nature? Second, when you said 'literally only' that excludes any symbolic import to the text. Are you saying that no part of Genesis has any symbolic meaning?

[DeeTee]

I highlighted the words I spoke and as you can see I made no mention of the Song of Solomon or Revelation.

Then let me rephrase my response as two related questions. First, why should I take the Genesis literally when other parts of the bible are more clearly symbolic in nature? Second, when you said 'literally only' that excludes any symbolic import to the text. Are you saying that no part of Genesis has any symbolic meaning?

There is NO symbolic import to Genesis 1 & 2. Just because symbolism may be used in other parts of the Bible doesn't mean Genesis contains any.

As I recall, I LIMITED my remarks to the CREATION account.

[genkaus]

The bolded words show the unrealistic nature of evolutionists. They want someone who is an unbeliever to go against his or her unbelief and prove the Bible true.

So, you understand the criteria for evidence. For a hypothesis (not just your bible one) to become a theory, the physical evidence should be overwhelming enough to convince the staunchest of skeptics.

They also have the audacity to be further unrealistic by restricting the evidence to a field that is rife with subjectivity and impossible to verify its conclusions.

Not at all. We are restricting the evidence to reality - to what physically exists and can be seen. Any fields of evidence which are rife with subjectivity and impossible to verify, such as POV literature of third level hearsay written by unknown authors with multiple possible interpretations, non-scientific language and unverifiable events are discounted. That is exactly why your bible is not evidence.

First, you would have to be able to distinguish what evidence on geological formation belonged to a local flood and what belonged to a global one. Since there was only 1 global flood in all of history, it is highly unlikely any of you could identify such evidence.

Easy. A single sedimentary layer dated to the same time with fossils from a diverse cross-section of species, indicating something akin to a mass extinction would indicate a global flood. Since there is no such evidence, we have a good reason to believe that there was no global flood.

Second, your restrictions show your dishonesty. You know as well as I that such evidence is left to the personal opinion of the person doing the study and since evolutionary thinking people do not want to prove the Bible true, it would be hard to find 1 person willing to be honest enough to contradict their own unbelief.

So, these people form their opinions based on evidence and do not have a preconceived agenda of proving the bible true. I don't see how it makes them dishonest.

Third, Since there are no ancient mss. recording the damage made by the global flood where do you suppose you would get verification from? Evolutionists can make their claims without verification so can creationists.

No, evolutionists always verify their claims. Creationists just can't.

Fourth, Your restrictions also demonstrate the very close-minded nature of evolutionists. They have to tilt the playing field in their favor just so they have an excuse to justify their decision to lead a sinful life. Not only do these restrictions show the unfairness of the evolutionist, it also demonstrates their fear that they may learn that their ideas are wrong.

Yes, tilting the playing field to ensure only true claims with evidence are included and idiotic and false claims with no evidence and no scientific basis are ruled out altogether. How dare we?

We have evidence for Noah's flood and no amount of trickery on the part of the evolutionist will change the truth. The global flood happened as the Bible states.

And apparently god went to great lengths to cover it up.

As a P.S. Such a request with its unrealistic restrictions only goes to show that the evolutionist refuses to be honest in their research. They take a person's body that is under the limitation of 70 years of life (+/-) and then declare that humans cannot live for 900 years thus they conclude that the Bible is false. That is dishonest work and not real objective scientific scholarship.

And creationists, without doing any actual research on human body, claim that humans can. They expect accolades for doing no work?

[KichigaiNeko]

Give it up DT...you have no argument and no evidence. ..................

Next?

[Faith No More]

I will address this point only, because genkaus' response was thourough enough.

The bolded words show the unrealistic nature of evolutionists. They want someone who is an unbeliever to go against his or her unbelief and prove the Bible true.

I never said it had to be a non-beleiver. There are plenty of believers out there that can be ojective without drawing preconceived conclusions. What I will not accept is arguments from biblical literalist, i.e. creations, because they have their conclusion, the bible, and then they shoehorn the evidence to fit that conclusion. That is not science and should be used in defense of an argument.

They also have the audacity to be further unrealistic by restricting the evidence to a field that is rife with subjectivity and impossible to verify its conclusions.

Please, do explain how geology is 'rife with subjectivity.'