Evolution or Intelligent Design

[Jamison5]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

A pudding stone is a fairly common sedimentary rock that has a mixture of other rocks embedded in a finer grained sedimentary stone. Given a large object such as a petrified tree, it's perfectly reasonable that it would take multiple layers of sediment to cover it.

As for the others, there's absolutely no need to rebut the bell that was supposedly entombed in coal as its "discoverer" supposedly fully extracted it from its coal matrix, thus making it impossible to distinguish it from a complete fabrication.

I've read more than enuf pseudoscientific mischararacterizations of what science entails presented by YEC Biblical literalists over the years that I'm not going to bother trying to dissolve your preconceived notions by rebutting all your assertions because based on my past experience, my rebuttals, even if accepted by you, will only yield a "but what about ..." from you. The only way to prevent that would be for you to be willing to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience from someone who knows how to teach the difference to someone who has been previously been exposed to pseudoscience presented as if it were science. That's not a skill I have, nor do I have any particular reason to learn it.

Calling it pseudoscience does not make it pseudoscience. The fact that you only criticised me and made excuses rather than accepting the facts or trying to make a serious rebuttal only shows how wrong you are. I would hope you know that you are using an ad hominem fallacy. I could easily do that to you and I would at least be right about you.

You claim that the bell in coal was a fabrication and you did not provide evidence to substantiate that claim of yours. Meanwhile, it is very easy to prove that all of the "evidence" for evolution is fabricated based on facts, confessions, contradictions, etc. I will elaborate on that if you want me to.

You only brought up one little rescue device for the polystrate trees that you didn't go into any detail about. How about you try to prove that's what happened to the trees? Trees do not last for millions of years, they decompose much more quickly than that. The Mt. St. Helens eruption has already made polystrate trees that are getting petrified. A canyon just like Grand Canyon but 1/40th the size was made in less than 9 hours. These are observed scientific and historical facts, not just an obscure rescue device like you had. Try again.

At this point I will not waste any more of my time with you unless you start trying to have an honest debate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Petrified trees are found going through multiple layers, proving that they layers cannot be millions of years apart.

Obviously you've never heard of pudding stones, or you'd easily realize that this example disproves nothing.

I have never heard an evolutionist mention that before. Please explain what you are talking about. Perhaps you could also entertain me by attempting to rebut all of the other evidences for a young earth and against evolution.

A pudding stone is a fairly common sedimentary rock that has a mixture of other rocks embedded in a finer grained sedimentary stone. Given a large object such as a petrified tree, it's perfectly reasonable that it would take multiple layers of sediment to cover it.

As for the others, there's absolutely no need to rebut the bell that was supposedly entombed in coal as its "discoverer" supposedly fully extracted it from its coal matrix, thus making it impossible to distinguish it from a complete fabrication.

I've read more than enuf pseudoscientific mischararacterizations of what science entails presented by YEC Biblical literalists over the years that I'm not going to bother trying to dissolve your preconceived notions by rebutting all your assertions because based on my past experience, my rebuttals, even if accepted by you, will only yield a "but what about ..." from you. The only way to prevent that would be for you to be willing to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience from someone who knows how to teach the difference to someone who has been previously been exposed to pseudoscience presented as if it were science. That's not a skill I have, nor do I have any particular reason to learn it.

Calling it pseudoscience does not make it pseudoscience.

Both sides do it.

[Kingpoleon]

There’s not enough time in 6,000 years for all the meteorological, geological, and biological events that we know happened. That’s just an empirical fact - unless you have some massive Grand Conspiracy Theory to explain why the extinction rate alone is so high, ignoring even, say, the evidence for tectonic shift or past volcanic activity which contradict it even further - your argument’s premise just makes zero sense.

[Jamison5]

There’s not enough time in 6,000 years for all the meteorological, geological, and biological events that we know happened. That’s just an empirical fact - unless you have some massive Grand Conspiracy Theory to explain why the extinction rate alone is so high, ignoring even, say, the evidence for tectonic shift or past volcanic activity which contradict it even further - your argument’s premise just makes zero sense.

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

The geology is all explained by the global flood; even the fossil record shows how the organisms from the lowest elevation of habitats are buried at the bottom and the higher elevation animals buried at the top. Sediment layers and geological features form very quickly in catasrophes, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which made many layers of sediment, and caused a flood that carved out a canyon in 9 hours. The faultlines are all connected, and it starts at an important biblical location: Caesarea Philippi.

The evolutionists' explanation of geology has serious contradictions, including the presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. The coelacanth is the "index fossil" supposedly representing a layer that is ~400 million years old, but they are still alive in the Indian Ocean today. Radiometric dating has serious flaws due to false assumptions. Radiometric dating has had many contradictions and drastic inaccuracy.

You mentioned extinction rates and tectonic shift, but you didn't go into any detail at all. Please elaborate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Law of Biogenesis?

It is indeed true that cellular life today does not arise save from existing cells, and furthermore it is true that because of the efficiency of existing life forms in feeding upon organic matter that even if the appropriate conditions existed on the Earth today for creating the raw materials of life, it would never have the chance to become life on its own before being utilized by an existing lifeform.  However, those observations don't imply that upon a lifeless world, life could not arise without the need for prior life.

[afleitch]

Hi.

Evidently you're a 'gish galloper' in which you make assertion after assertion, often not linked or not flowing from the previous idea which then has to be refuted. Given the amount of assertions you have made about all scientific fields which evidently you are not an expert in but simply reguritate because you are 17 (and neither are we) it would, to be fair, take a sizable referenced essay to adress each point.

To be brief. If what you said was true, it would be accepted. End of. Every book from geology to embryology would be rewritten. Even if 'conspiratorial' atheists did not accept it, those who were Christian or religious in any way would. It would be of greater validation. It would prove you 'right' and save the world for god.

But you are mistaken. You are misconceived and evidently both prideful and mistrustful of the scientific method.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).



Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The facts in the Bible co-exist with historical facts, except for Genesis and Revelations.
 
Moses, Buddha, Jesus and Elijah were prophets, and Revelations is a prophecy and so is Genesis; however, there is a special relationship between God and Abraham and Christ

[Kingpoleon]

The geology is all explained by the global flood; even the fossil record shows how the organisms from the lowest elevation of habitats are buried at the bottom and the higher elevation animals buried at the top. Sediment layers and geological features form very quickly in catasrophes, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which made many layers of sediment, and caused a flood that carved out a canyon in 9 hours. The faultlines are all connected, and it starts at an important biblical location: Caesarea Philippi.

The evolutionists' explanation of geology has serious contradictions, including the presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. The coelacanth is the "index fossil" supposedly representing a layer that is ~400 million years old, but they are still alive in the Indian Ocean today. Radiometric dating has serious flaws due to false assumptions. Radiometric dating has had many contradictions and drastic inaccuracy.

Uh, no - the Bible spells out how Noah prevents a mass extinction event. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the Flood wiped out certain species and not others - for no apparent reason - when the Bible does not mention any such detail.

The coelacanth’s hard shell, like the horse shoe crab, makes it an unsurprising candidate for longest lasting species - and its interior primitive organs/body structure kind of contradict your point.

As for the extinction rate? And tectonic plates? It’s broadly undisputed that the world used to be one supercontinent, and Africa and South America used to touch. No broad geological event like the “Rising of the Waters” would explain the seemingly sudden split between the two continents, or why literally no species are in common between the two given only 6,000 years of history. Surely an elephant, a rhino, a lion, or a cheetah would do pretty well in South America - we know hippos would dominate. Why do none exist, then?

[Jamison5]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

[Jamison5]

The geology is all explained by the global flood; even the fossil record shows how the organisms from the lowest elevation of habitats are buried at the bottom and the higher elevation animals buried at the top. Sediment layers and geological features form very quickly in catasrophes, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which made many layers of sediment, and caused a flood that carved out a canyon in 9 hours. The faultlines are all connected, and it starts at an important biblical location: Caesarea Philippi.

The evolutionists' explanation of geology has serious contradictions, including the presence of Carbon-14 in coal and diamonds. The coelacanth is the "index fossil" supposedly representing a layer that is ~400 million years old, but they are still alive in the Indian Ocean today. Radiometric dating has serious flaws due to false assumptions. Radiometric dating has had many contradictions and drastic inaccuracy.

Uh, no - the Bible spells out how Noah prevents a mass extinction event. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the Flood wiped out certain species and not others - for no apparent reason - when the Bible does not mention any such detail.

The coelacanth’s hard shell, like the horse shoe crab, makes it an unsurprising candidate for longest lasting species - and its interior primitive organs/body structure kind of contradict your point.

As for the extinction rate? And tectonic plates? It’s broadly undisputed that the world used to be one supercontinent, and Africa and South America used to touch. No broad geological event like the “Rising of the Waters” would explain the seemingly sudden split between the two continents, or why literally no species are in common between the two given only 6,000 years of history. Surely an elephant, a rhino, a lion, or a cheetah would do pretty well in South America - we know hippos would dominate. Why do none exist, then?

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

You also claimed that the flood is described as a simple "rising of the waters." This is not true at all and shows that you obviously haven't read the Bible or at least didn't pay attention to what it said. Genesis 7:11 very clearly describes seismic activity. As I mentioned, the faultlines all connect and it starts at Caesarea Philippi, which is an important location in the Bible.

The coelacanth don't show up in every layer; there are many layers above where thay are found that don't have them, but they are alive today; your reasoning on that is incoherent. The coelacanth are better described as having some members being buried at the beginning of the flood, thus being buried at the bottom like how their habitat was at the bottom, with some members surviving and reproducing still today.

You also completely ignored my other points. Think about it. Be open-minded. Have a good night.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

I recognize both the translation of Genesis 1:7 that Statilius was citing and the version that you're citing. They're different translations of the same concept, which at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written was, yes, understood to refer to a solid dome of sky over a flat and stationary earth (see the Jewish Encyclopedia's article "Cosmogony"). By the Middle Ages this had been interpreted as the Ptolemaic cosmos we're all vaguely familiar with today, but that required a synthesis of the Biblical cosmos and the Neoplatonic cosmos that occurred over the course of the first millennium. Here is Aquinas's take on the subject.

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

If you know where I can find a living scelidosaurid, hallucigeniid, or mylagaulid species, I'd love to hear it.

[Jamison5]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

I recognize both the translation of Genesis 1:7 that Statilius was citing and the version that you're citing. They're different translations of the same concept, which at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written was, yes, understood to refer to a solid dome of sky over a flat and stationary earth (see the Jewish Encyclopedia's article "Cosmogony"). By the Middle Ages this had been interpreted as the Ptolemaic cosmos we're all vaguely familiar with today, but that required a synthesis of the Biblical cosmos and the Neoplatonic cosmos that occurred over the course of the first millennium. Here is Aquinas's take on the subject.

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

If you know where I can find a living scelidosaurid, hallucigeniid, or mylagaulid species, I'd love to hear it.

You are trying to use extrabiblical sources try to change the meaning of the Bible, very dishonest of you. The Bible never describes the earth as flat, it describes it as round. The water is not there anymore because it fell at the beginning of the flood, as it is clearly stated in Genesis 7.

As for the extinctions, of course some families might have gone extinct since the flood, but not from it. You are using another misrepresentation.  Also, thay can't be classified as accurately if they aren't alive.

If you can't have an honest debate and won't be open-minded then I'm not going to waste my time with you at this point. Have a good night.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

All you did was make assertions. Several scientific laws prove the existence of God, such as the Law of Biogenesis. The Bible gives a great explanation for starlight: God makes the starlight in Gen 1:14 and makes the actual stars in Gen 1:16, remarkably distinguishing stars and starlight, and describing how the distant starlight can be seen. Chapters 38-41 of the Book of Job are a transcript of God talking to Job, and that is backed up by the fact that those chapters contain some of the most amazing scientific statements including light being in motion and deep sea springs, written thousands of years before the human discovery of those facts. The Bible mentioned "paths of the sea," which directly led to the discovery of ocean currents.

I don't think you understand just how wacky from a modern perspective the Biblical concept of the natural universe is. And this isn't me blaming the authors, because to be fair they were writing 2,500 years ago when only the most rudimentary cosmological facts were known, mostly thanks to Babylonian astronomers (and much of Genesis is borrowed/reworked Mesopotamian mythology).


Genesis tells us that above the sky there is a cosmic ocean separated from the earth by a solid dome (Genesis 1:7: "So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome"). To be a Biblical literalist you have to believe this picture over the most basic and obvious natural facts, like how space is actually a vacuum and not filled with water, and the Earth's atmosphere does not contain a solid vault separating us from the heavens.

Now, maybe you can argue the author of Genesis is being metaphorical here, but then there is no reason not to accept e.g. the story of Adam and Eve as metaphorical either.

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives. The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust. Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

If you are going to criticise the Bible, don't do it my lying about what it says.

I recognize both the translation of Genesis 1:7 that Statilius was citing and the version that you're citing. They're different translations of the same concept, which at the time that the Hebrew Bible was written was, yes, understood to refer to a solid dome of sky over a flat and stationary earth (see the Jewish Encyclopedia's article "Cosmogony"). By the Middle Ages this had been interpreted as the Ptolemaic cosmos we're all vaguely familiar with today, but that required a synthesis of the Biblical cosmos and the Neoplatonic cosmos that occurred over the course of the first millennium. Here is Aquinas's take on the subject.

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

If you know where I can find a living scelidosaurid, hallucigeniid, or mylagaulid species, I'd love to hear it.

You are trying to use extrabiblical sources try to change the meaning of the Bible, very dishonest of you.

As opposed to doing what?? Textbooks for learning Biblical Hebrew are "extrabiblical sources", dude. It's literally impossible for a native speaker of any modern language not to use "extrabiblical sources" at some point in the process of reading and interpreting the Book of Genesis. If you can't understand a point this basic then there's no reason to think that you understand any other aspect of Biblical exegesis either.

[Kingpoleon]

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

Migrated differently? Sure, I guess. But if South America and Africa were connected - which nobody has ever denied - why do they share 0.0% of species in common? Every other continents that touch share many species in common; Siberia/Alaska have plenty of people and animals in common. Elephants, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, lions, cheetahs, gazelle. Not a one of them naturally live in South America. Jaguars, anacondas, toucans, piranhas. None live in Africa. How do you explain this and the thousands of other examples?

You also claimed that the flood is described as a simple "rising of the waters." This is not true at all and shows that you obviously haven't read the Bible or at least didn't pay attention to what it said. Genesis 7:11 very clearly describes seismic activity. As I mentioned, the faultlines all connect and it starts at Caesarea Philippi, which is an important location in the Bible.

Nope. A flood is literally when water falls from the sky and the current waters RISE. Do you not know what a flood is?

The coelacanth don't show up in every layer; there are many layers above where thay are found that don't have them, but they are alive today; your reasoning on that is incoherent. The coelacanth are better described as having some members being buried at the beginning of the flood, thus being buried at the bottom like how their habitat was at the bottom, with some members surviving and reproducing still today.

You also completely ignored my other points. Think about it. Be open-minded. Have a good night.

Then why aren’t all water dwelling species found at low levels? Aquatic animals have been found in the Rocky Mountains, which are pretty high elevation in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Well, if we're going to dispute translations then the Bible actually says "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן". The word translated in English as 'valut' or 'dome' or 'firmament' in the KJV (and translated as 'στερέωμα/stereoma' in Greek, from 'stereos' i.e. solid, and 'firmamentum' from 'firmus' in Latin) is רקיע 'raqia', which comes fom the root 'raqa', meaning "to beat out a metal sheet thinly". See Job 37:18 ("Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?") and Ezekiel 1:22 ("Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome (רקיע), shining like crystal, spread out above their heads."). There's really no other way to read Genesis in context other than the structure is solid.

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

A more proper translation is something like "fly across the surface of the firmament". The word 'פְּנֵ֖י' is Hebrew for 'face', and is the same word used in Genesis 1:2 in the context of God hovering over the water, not in it.

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives.

The cosmology of Genesis obviously differs from other parts of the Bible, as they were written centuries apart by different authors writing in different languages in completely different social and theological contexts. So "third heaven" is a reference to one of Paul's letters, but there he is speaking in context of the common Platonic view that there were multiple, perhaps 7 or more levels of heaven to get through before one's soul arrived at God. In contrast the writers of the early Old Testament believed that one went down to the underworld Sheol after death, like a shade in Greek mythology.

Another interesting thing to note is how in Genesis the primordial waters exist before God's creation. In ancient Near East mythology the waters of chaos are tamed by the creator god who slays a sea monster: see the Enuma Elish, where Marduk kills the serpent Tiamat and creates the firmament which separates the waters from her body. It might even be that Genesis is referencing this story as a demythologised critique of Babylonian creation myth ("Yahweh is so powerful he doesn't need to battle any serpent to create the world" kind of thing). Of course there are also oblique references in other parts of the Bible to Yahweh's slaying of the sea monster Leviathan (Psalm 74), so this is a common theme of water/chaos tamed.

The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust.

Yet in Psalm 148:4 these waters still exist: "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!". The post-Flood Psalmist's cosmic geography still includes the primordial waters above the heavens as separated by the firmament. And of course, without a solid structure to keep the above waters out, what physical force was preventing the water from flooding the earth at the instant of creation? And why didn't the water freeze solid in space?

Anyway, with reference to the Flood, something else we can look at is Genesis 7:11 ("on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.") where the "windows of the heavens" are literal windows in the solid vault in the sky which God opens to bring water down through.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As opposed to doing what?? Textbooks for learning Biblical Hebrew are "extrabiblical sources", dude. It's literally impossible for a native speaker of any modern language not to use "extrabiblical sources" at some point in the process of reading and interpreting the Book of Genesis. If you can't understand a point this basic then there's no reason to think that you understand any other aspect of Biblical exegesis either.

The irony is that Jamison is using modern science to reinterpret the Bible: "science tells us that there is no such thing as a solid sky, so the Biblical author really must have meant this".

[Jamison5]

First of all you misquoted the Bible. It actually says this: "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

Well, if we're going to dispute translations then the Bible actually says "וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן". The word translated in English as 'valut' or 'dome' or 'firmament' in the KJV (and translated as 'στερέωμα/stereoma' in Greek, from 'stereos' i.e. solid, and 'firmamentum' from 'firmus' in Latin) is רקיע 'raqia', which comes fom the root 'raqa', meaning "to beat out a metal sheet thinly". See Job 37:18 ("Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?") and Ezekiel 1:22 ("Over the heads of the living creatures there was something like a dome (רקיע), shining like crystal, spread out above their heads."). There's really no other way to read Genesis in context other than the structure is solid.

Genesis 1:20 says this: "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

A more proper translation is something like "fly across the surface of the firmament". The word 'פְּנֵ֖י' is Hebrew for 'face', and is the same word used in Genesis 1:2 in the context of God hovering over the water, not in it.

According to the Bible, the firmament is heaven, which is split into 3 parts: Earth's atmosphere, space, and the third heaven where God lives.

The cosmology of Genesis obviously differs from other parts of the Bible, as they were written centuries apart by different authors writing in different languages in completely different social and theological contexts. So "third heaven" is a reference to one of Paul's letters, but there he is speaking in context of the common Platonic view that there were multiple, perhaps 7 or more levels of heaven to get through before one's soul arrived at God. In contrast the writers of the early Old Testament believed that one went down to the underworld Sheol after death, like a shade in Greek mythology.

Another interesting thing to note is how in Genesis the primordial waters exist before God's creation. In ancient Near East mythology the waters of chaos are tamed by the creator god who slays a sea monster: see the Enuma Elish, where Marduk kills the serpent Tiamat and creates the firmament which separates the waters from her body. It might even be that Genesis is referencing this story as a demythologised critique of Babylonian creation myth ("Yahweh is so powerful he doesn't need to battle any serpent to create the world" kind of thing). Of course there are also oblique references in other parts of the Bible to Yahweh's slaying of the sea monster Leviathan (Psalm 74), so this is a common theme of water/chaos tamed.

The waters between the atmosphere and space fell during the flood as rain, while most of the floodwater came from the water below the earth's crust.

Yet in Psalm 148:4 these waters still exist: "Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!". The post-Flood Psalmist's cosmic geography still includes the primordial waters above the heavens as separated by the firmament. And of course, without a solid structure to keep the above waters out, what physical force was preventing the water from flooding the earth at the instant of creation? And why didn't the water freeze solid in space?

Anyway, with reference to the Flood, something else we can look at is Genesis 7:11 ("on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.") where the "windows of the heavens" are literal windows in the solid vault in the sky which God opens to bring water down through.

You are still continuing to try to change what the Bible says. You also continue to misrepresent what it says. Psalms 148:4 is describing water between space and the third heaven, not between the earth and space. You also continue to lie about what the firmament is and make strawmen based on that.

At this point I have no interest in this one against four debate where you have no interest in having an honest debate. Have a good night.

[Jamison5]

As opposed to doing what?? Textbooks for learning Biblical Hebrew are "extrabiblical sources", dude. It's literally impossible for a native speaker of any modern language not to use "extrabiblical sources" at some point in the process of reading and interpreting the Book of Genesis. If you can't understand a point this basic then there's no reason to think that you understand any other aspect of Biblical exegesis either.

The irony is that Jamison is using modern science to reinterpret the Bible: "science tells us that there is no such thing as a solid sky, so the Biblical author really must have meant this".

You are contnuing to lie of course. The firmament is described as being the sky. You are the one reinterpreting words to fit your narrative.

[Jamison5]

Part of the reason for the long lifespans before the flood, which are documented by ancient civilizations all over the world, was the obstruction of radiation due to the water, and the increased air pressure. There was also more oxygen.

I think that you, or rather whoever you're cribbing your notes from, has been confused by the use of water for neutron shielding. Water is an effective, cheap, shield for baryonic radiation (protons and neutrons) which is one reason it's used to cover nuclear reactor fuel elements held in storage. But as a shield for leptonic and bosonic radiation, it's effectively useless, and those are the radiations which are of primary concern for those who travel outside Earth's atmosphere. (Water is effective at absorbing a few particular frequencies of photons, which we take advantage of to produce microwave ovens.)

I suppose you mentioned the fact that at some times of Earth's existence, there was much more oxygen in the atmosphere, such as the Carboniferous period, which was used as a possible explanation of why dragonflies were so much larger then, but there's several problems with using that as an explanation of gigantism as posited by some Biblical literalists.

First off, let me use something from the Bible itself. If those high oxygen levels were necessary for giants, then what about Goliath?

Second, over geologic history, there have been wide differences in oxygen levels, from much higher than today to much lower. That's really odd if all those layers were supposedly laid down at the same time, and you're going to use the oxygen levels as estimated by mainstream science to advance your theories. This exemplifies what I despise most about usual Biblical literalist attempts to misuse science. They cherry-pick those facts that are useful to the narrative they wish to construct and ignore everything else.

Third, it's generally accepted by mainstream scientists these days that the primary reason we once had gigantic dragonflies but no longer do, is that we now have flying vertebrates that would happily chow down on large lumbering dragonflies if they hadn't already gone extinct.

Whenever you resort to using an argument from majority opinion, and you resort to using attacks and rescue devices, you just show how wrong and desperate you are. I no longer have any interest in this debate with you as a result.

[Jamison5]

Your post is one of the most dishonest misrepresentations of the Bible I have ever seen. Any mention of species is a total misrepresentation. Noah brought at least one pair of every FAMILY of land animal and bird. The word "kind" in the Bible is defined the same way as a family, not a species. Certain different populations from the same family/kind may have gone extinct, but not the family/kind as a whole. The reason different animals are in different places is because they migrated differently after they left the ark, it's so obvious. Why do you think the distant and relatively isolated Australia has some of the more passive and unique animals?

Migrated differently? Sure, I guess. But if South America and Africa were connected - which nobody has ever denied - why do they share 0.0% of species in common? Every other continents that touch share many species in common; Siberia/Alaska have plenty of people and animals in common. Elephants, rhinos, hippos, gorillas, lions, cheetahs, gazelle. Not a one of them naturally live in South America. Jaguars, anacondas, toucans, piranhas. None live in Africa. How do you explain this and the thousands of other examples?

You also claimed that the flood is described as a simple "rising of the waters." This is not true at all and shows that you obviously haven't read the Bible or at least didn't pay attention to what it said. Genesis 7:11 very clearly describes seismic activity. As I mentioned, the faultlines all connect and it starts at Caesarea Philippi, which is an important location in the Bible.

Nope. A flood is literally when water falls from the sky and the current waters RISE. Do you not know what a flood is?

The coelacanth don't show up in every layer; there are many layers above where thay are found that don't have them, but they are alive today; your reasoning on that is incoherent. The coelacanth are better described as having some members being buried at the beginning of the flood, thus being buried at the bottom like how their habitat was at the bottom, with some members surviving and reproducing still today.

You also completely ignored my other points. Think about it. Be open-minded. Have a good night.

Then why aren’t all water dwelling species found at low levels? Aquatic animals have been found in the Rocky Mountains, which are pretty high elevation in my opinion.

The Rocky Mountains are high elevation but that doesn't describe the geologic column. I never said that higher levels of oxygen are needed for giantism. Goliath was genetically larger, at a time when the genome was less mutated and degraded compared to now. Genesis 7:11 describes how the faultlines were made and moved, so you are lying when you say it was simply water rising. Africa and South America don't have the same animals because all of the land animals outside of the ark were killed in the flood, and then they migrated to different parts of the world afterward.

All you have done is repeated your assertions and misrepresentations. The Bible mentions the fact that light is in motion and that there are deep sea springs; it was way ahead of its time with science and is scientifically accurate. Mitochondrial DNA goes back to a common female ancestor about 6,500 year ago, very close to the beginning of the biblical timeline. Carbon-14 is in coal and diamonds, proving them to be only thousands of years old. Think about it.

I have no interest in this debate at this point. I am not going to waste my time responding to four people who have no interest in having an honest debate. Have a good night.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What exactly would constitute an "honest debate"? Conceding your interpretation of the Bible as a given from the get-go? Discussing this subject on your preferred terms and no other? That's not how things work on Atlas Forum, Jamison.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Psalms 148:4 is describing water between space and the third heaven, not between the earth and space. You also continue to lie about what the firmament is and make strawmen based on that.

But the Psalmist refers to the waters above the heavens. How is it between space and third heaven if it's "above the heavens"?

Obviously this makes more sense if you take the Psalmist to mean 'sky' when they say 'heavens', as is normal, and the "waters above the heavens" refers to the primordial waters separated above the solid firmament in Genesis.

At this point I have no interest in this one against four debate where you have no interest in having an honest debate. Have a good night.

Fair enough.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Intelligent design implies there is a specific, finite beginning to at least one event in the history of existence. That doesn't mesh with anything that we know about physics.

Natural-selection evolution is by definition the way pretty much everything in biology works, but it's more "survival of the adapted" than "fittest." "Fittest" can mean the same thing but just has connotations of strength that don't need to be there.

The truth is that atheists bend science to try to justify atheism.

the only time this ever really happens is when some atheist says "god doesn't exist and i know it for a fact because nobody's shown me the existence of god like science says you have to" and that's because science doesn't allow you to prove the non-existence of something

those people are generally teenagers and that take is generally made within high school cafeterias