Even setting evolution aside, basic geology disproves creationism

April 28, 2015 by David R Montgomery, The Conversation
Conglomerate rocks aren’t made overnight. Credit: James St John, CC BY

In the ongoing conflict between science and creationism, evolution is usually a main point of contention. The idea that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor is a major problem for creationists. As a geologist, though, I think that the rocks beneath our feet offer even better arguments against creationism. For the creationist model doesn't square with what you can see for yourself. And this has been known since before Darwin wrote a word about evolution.

What the rocks say

I don't have to travel very far to make this case. There's a slab of polished rock on the wall outside my department office that refutes so-called Flood Geology: the view that a global, world-shattering explains geologic history after the initial creation of Earth by God. This eight-foot-long slab is a conglomerate – a rock made from water-worked fragments of older rocks.

It's what you'd get if you buried a riverbed composed of many different types of rock deep enough below ground for temperature and pressure to forge it into a new rock. Preserved in it, you can see the original particles of sand, gravel and cobbles made of various kinds of rock. And if you look closely you can see some of the cobbles are themselves conglomerates—rocks within rocks.

Why does this disprove the creationist view of geology? Because a conglomerate made of fragments of an older conglomerate not only requires a first round of erosion, deposition, and burial deep enough to turn the original sediments into rock. It requires another pass through the whole cycle to turn the second pile of sedimentary rock fragments into another .

In other words, this one rock shows that there is more to the geologic record than describe in their scripturally-interpreted version of earth history. A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves. This, of course, is no surprise to geologists who have established that the world is billions of years old, far older than the thousands of years that creationists infer from adding up the generations enumerated in the Bible.

Early Christians read nature as well as the Bible

In researching my book The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood, I looked into the history of thought about the biblical flood. What I found surprised me on two levels. First, most of the early workers who pioneered what we now call geology were clergy dedicated to reading God's other book—nature. Second, in pitting science against Christianity, today's young Earth creationists essentially ignore centuries of Christian theology.

For the first thousand years of Christianity, the church considered literal interpretations of the stories in Genesis to be overly simplistic interpretations that missed deeper meaning. Influential thinkers like Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas held that what we could learn from studying the book of nature could not conflict with the Bible because they shared the same author. Yes, it seems that one of the oldest traditions in Christian thought holds that when reason contradicts favored interpretations of scripture about the natural world then those interpretations should be reconsidered.

In keeping with this view, mainstream Christians reinterpreted the biblical stories of the creation and flood after geological discoveries revealed that Earth had a longer and more complicated history than would be inferred from a literal reading of Genesis. Perhaps, they concluded, the days in the week of creation corresponded to geological ages. Maybe Noah's flood was not global but a devastating Mesopotamian flood.

Young Earth creationists break from history

For over a century, such views dominated mainstream Christian theology until the twentieth century rise of young Earth creationism. This is the version of creationism to which Ken Ham subscribes – you might remember his debate with Bill Nye from 2014. Young Earth creationists imagine that people lived with dinosaurs and that Noah's flood shaped the world's topography. In fact, this brand of , embodied by Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky, is actually one of the youngest branches of Christianity's family tree.

Interestingly, one can challenge Flood Geology on biblical grounds. What did Noah do in the biblical story? He saved two of every living thing. So consider the case of fossils, which creationists attribute to the flood. What you find in the rocks is that more than 99% of all species entombed in the rock record are extinct. This simple fact offers a stark contrast to what you would expect to find based on a literal reading of the biblical story.

After looking into the long history of engagement and cross-pollination between geology and Christianity, I find it curious that the conversation constantly gravitates to arguments for and against evolution. Overlooked is how the young Earth creationist's literal interpretation of biblical stories runs afoul of basic geological observations—like that slab of on the wall near my office.

A key point that gets lost in debates over the modern perception of conflict between science and religion is the degree to which this is actually a conflict within religion over how to view science.

Explore further: The evolution of creationism

Related Stories

The evolution of creationism

November 5, 2012

Throughout history, people have sought to understand how the world came to be and how it has changed over time. This curiosity has produced a rich legacy of science and philosophy and impacted and influenced religion and ...

Dino skeleton to go on display at Creation Museum

May 22, 2014

A new exhibit of a 30-foot (9-meter)-long fossil skeleton of an Allosaurus, which resembles a Tyrannosaurus rex, is set to open at a Kentucky museum that asserts dinosaurs lived alongside humans a few thousand years ago.

Creationism creeps into mainstream geology

June 13, 2011

In almost every way, the "Garden of the Gods at Colorado Springs" excursion at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA) last year was a normal — even enjoyable — field trip. Standard geologic ...

Recommended for you

Rainfall's natural variation hides climate change signal

February 22, 2018

New research from The Australian National University (ANU) and ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science suggests natural rainfall variation is so great that it could take a human lifetime for significant climate ...

Seasonal patterns in the Amazon explained

February 22, 2018

Environmental scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Brookhaven National Laboratory have led an international collaboration to improve satellite observations of tropical forests.

52 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
2.1 / 5 (22) Apr 28, 2015
A single grand flood cannot explain it all. Embracing young Earth creationism means you have to abandon faith in the story told by the rocks themselves.


Technically, the Bible mentions an even larger world wide flood which pre-dates the continents, and is in agreement with the mainstream geology.

You haven't argued against "creationism" you have argued against a few mix-ups which have little to do with the ultimate notion that there is a creator god who must of neccessity pre-date our concept of space and time. This is because we can prove by logic that logic predates space and time, and more importantly this super logic is causative and is a mind.

I can PROVE this mathematically, using set theory, in a few lines of text and have done so several times, and not one person of any education has been able to undermine the position.

I've even found some maths evidence that suggests the universe may be older than mainstream science says, and I still believe in a God.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 28, 2015
Author, when you find a process that can exist in a state of nothingness to turn nonthingness into something, come back and try to debate me. Until then you lack understanding. You are playing with rocks, but rocks have nothing to do with the ultimate question, nor does religious doctrine.

I am not religious, and at least I try not to be religious, as Christianity is inherently anti-religious, teaching that religious works cannot save or enhance a person.

It is very simple, as I have said;

Nothing{} is an empty set.

Nothing{P} is an incongruency and cannot exist.

Since our process, P, cannot be a member of the empty set "Nothing" then the first cause must be an entity which always existed, and moreover since creation has not always existed, our first cause must be an entity which has the power to choose to affect change, which makes it a MIND.

"In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God...all things were made by Him..."
Returners
1.2 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2015
If the Sun is a first Generation Star, as the Bible implies, then the Universe would actually need to be several TRILLION years old, if we assume that the Sun was once almost entirely Hydrogen and burned gradually increasing in luminosity and gradually increasing in Helium percent until its present condition.

Even if the Sun is a second generation star, it doesn't change much in terms of man. Things have been around for a lot longer than man can really even comprehend.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2015
Science is about looking for fundamental laws. Laws are a subset of Logic. Believe it or not, you are actually looking for God, because you believe the universe is governed by Laws. I believe the universe is governed by laws. Laws are logical, and I've proven logic predates the universe, and I've proven there was never a condition of nothingness. From this it's easy to see that the super-set of "logic", this "Logos", must be a Being with a Mind, and the ability to make choices, because we know "something" must be Eternal, and we know the universe itself is not Eternal. Even if it were eternal we can still prove that Logic is a super-set of that Eternity, and therefore the universe, whether finite or infinite, does not preclude the existence of the creator God. In fact there is nothing preventing the Logos from creating alternate universes with infinite histories and futures.
Doug_Huffman
4.5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2015
Creationism conversation click-bait.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2015
Can you falsify the existence of God? No.

Does that mean believing in God, or trying to deduce the nature of God is non-scientific? No.

Studying the nature of God is not like studying unicorns or your spaghetti monster.

Here's the thing, if something is absolutely true, then the proposition of "falsifying" that something is preposterous. It is inconceivable to disprove "The Truth", so it can't be non-scientific to study God. In fact all true science points to God, because God is the ultimate origin of all things, and this is automatic. It cannot be prevented or avoided because falsifying the truth is preposterous.

The postulate that God does not exist is preposterous.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw in a few more details, because the Biblical "First Flood" actually agrees with old-earth, mainstream Geology, which holds that the world was covered by shallow oceans, then small continents formed and then merged to make larger continents.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2015
For Reference, the "First Flood" refers to the aquatic, submerged condition of the Earth in Genesis 1:1 through 1:9.

cjn
3.9 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2015
Preface: Not a creationist.

That out of the way, this author creates a strawman argument (creationists must be Young Earthers) and presumes to blanket across a whole group of people which certainly do not all fit within that block. Either he knows this and is disingenuous (since he obviously does not respect these people), or he is willfully ignorant of his opponent's platform. Both seem like egregious mistakes if you're going to take the effort to draft a [simpleminded] oped piece. Comments like "In the ongoing conflict between science and creationism..." additionally show disdain for the "others" and their belief systems. This is simply not a constructive way to deal with people you want to eventually see your side of the argument -and if that is not the goal, he's simply being a self-righteous twit who likes to hear himself talk.
Shootist
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2015
no surprise.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 28, 2015
Where did all this water from Genesis 1:1 through 1:9 go?

There is an enormous amount of chemically hydrated rock and water-based minerals in the crust and mantle, not to mention oxidized rock (silica, etc), so it's not hard to see how even a miles thick ocean could disappear into a 8 to 70 miles thick crust and oxidize or hydrate the rocks as appropriate, and we know this is true from basic geochemistry.

Serpentine can store the hydroxide group, and Feldspars and other Oxygen heavy rocks store the Oxygen part. This is geochemistry. It's known this happened over several cycles of the crust being created and destroyed through subduction.

I don't know where the water came from , nor does it matter in the ultimate narrative, but it is an interesting topic. I think water is actually necessary to create planets as it's electrical poled properties allows for the formation of ice-dust clumps to create space dust and space rocks under existing physics.
cjn
5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2015
Also, you can't make a logical argument against like this against creationism; I have tried and failed many times. If you're believe that this is a power which can construct the Earth (and universe) as it is, then that power can also "rocks within rocks" (FTA). Its like arguing the powers that Superman has... if he needs to go back in time, well he can just fly backwards around the Earth and do it; if he needs to stop a tsunami, he can fly in an opposite rotation to dissipate the wave. All you can do is present unbiased evidence and hope that they reach the same conclusion.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2015
Also, you can't make a logical argument against like this against creationism; I have tried and failed many times. If you're believe that this is a power which can construct the Earth (and universe) as it is, then that power can also "rocks within rocks" (FTA). Its like arguing the powers that Superman has... if he needs to go back in time, well he can just fly backwards around the Earth and do it; if he needs to stop a tsunami, he can fly in an opposite rotation to dissipate the wave. All you can do is present unbiased evidence and hope that they reach the same conclusion.


"God is not the author of confusion".

The Bible, whether inspired or not, does not present a God of lawlessness and fancy. Even biblical miracles occur according to a Law.
LariAnn
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2015
I've watched and read the "science vs. god" or "science vs. creationism" debate for years and have noticed that the god-deniers take a stance of "all or nothing", meaning that any reference to god has to be a reference to the judeo-christian concept (bible), and that science is pristine, without bias, and completely honorable and honest. Both components of that stance are absurd, IMHO. Science is an activity undertaken by human beings, and ego is a common part of the human psyche. Therefore, the output of science and the content of scientific hypotheses and/or theories can be tainted by the human ego as well as by the survival instinct (need to earn a living). One could postulate that truly reliable science could be done by robots, not humans, but unfortunately, humans program the robots.

Just as young earth creationists are but a small subset of Christianity, believers in the judeo-christian concept of god are a small subset of all believers in god.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (16) Apr 28, 2015
We will not survive as a species unless we outgrow this pathetic need for a Cosmic Daddy, who will love us, punish us severely, and tell us we really won't die.

But we will.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2015
Can you falsify the existence of God? No.


That is why he belongs in the psychology article comment sections. Not the science section.

Does that mean believing in God, or trying to deduce the nature of God is non-scientific? No.


You missed that one big time Skippy. That is exactly what it means.

Studying the nature of God is not like studying unicorns or your spaghetti monster.


It more like that than it is like studying physics and geology.

Here's the thing, if something is absolutely true, then the proposition of "falsifying" that something is preposterous. It is inconceivable to disprove "The Truth", so it can't be non-scientific to study God. In fact all true science points to God, because God is the ultimate origin of all things, and this is automatic. It cannot be prevented or avoided because falsifying the truth is preposterous.


Okayeei Skippy, I agree that that little gem was preposterous. And silly too.

btb101
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 28, 2015
There is no god...
Deal with it..
reset
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2015
@Lariann - Well said.

Not all PHD's believe in mainstream theories. Some politicians actually do care about their constituents. Not all creationists believe in the young earth theory. When the choice is God or physics "breaking down"...God makes more sense. The claims made by proponents of the BB theory as to the nature of the event, when taken in the context of everything we know about physics, are considerably more preposterous.

In a debate between a logical creationist and a PHD who is an atheist about how the universe got here, neither can actually prove their belief to be true because neither side sees the "evidence" the other is presenting as evidence. Funny thing is, there are alot more anecdotal accounts of the metaphysical than there are of quark gluon soup.
rderkis
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2015
If someone can make the statement there is no God. While knowing how much about the universe we understand and know, must think of themselves as a God, who knows so much more about the universe than all the rest of us/
mytwocts
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2015
The author is right that religion has no case, independent of the case for evolution. No geological evidence needed.
nowhere
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2015
It is very simple, as I have said;

Nothing{} is an empty set.

Nothing{P} is an incongruency and cannot exist.

Since our process, P, cannot be a member of the empty set "Nothing" then the first cause must be an entity which always existed

Nothing{EntityM}

, and moreover since creation has not always existed, our first cause must be an entity which has the power to choose to affect change, which makes it a MIND.

Nothing{EntityM{P}} - shifting the goalpost makes a bad argument.

Define this "nothing". How do you know what can or cannot be a member of "nothing"? Can "change", a property of P{} also be a property of "nothing{}?
PeterKinnon
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2015
Creationism does not need "disproving"

Simply because the concept is based entirely upon mythology and has no evidential basis whatsoever.

Should we similarly waste time trying to disprove the existence of The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster?

As Scott David Weitzenhoffer aptly remarks:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

SuperThunderRocketJockey
3 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2015
Aggroclickbatertisement.

I shall now plug critical thinking skills:
http://www.rasmus...ter-now/

With critical thinking you can spot appeals to your emotions designed to whip up a profitable outrage. No geological data need be presented in a wrapper of disproving a tiny part of religion to prove its own validity.
FainAvis
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2015
Spot on PeterKinnon.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2015
Good as far as it goes*, this article is about "young Earth creationism", a very narrow type of magic delusion. More generally, thermodynamics and later classic quantum mechanics rejected magic action in all known systems, evolution has rejected magic emergence in biology, cosmology has recently rejected magic action in the emergence of the local universe, and 2 years ago LHC topped modern quantum physics with rejecting magic action in life and death - no 'souls', or the quantum particle field vacuum would pick it up in the Standard Model as it sees and quantifies all interaction that affects our bodies.

So, no more magic delusions. Please!

*Theologically knowledgeable skeptics do not agree that Augustine was preferring a non-literal reading. [ https://whyevolut...e-bible/ ]

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2015
[ctd]

And the article is traipsing into accommodationist land. There are no examples of "cross-pollination" between science and magic thinking. Only cross purposes.

If 'gods' existed, why did they 'create' skepticism?

Re how to reach out to magic thinkers, we have statistics that show that individuals are, well, individual. All approaches works. US is an example that coddling to magic thinkers works worse than shaming them as we did here in Sweden. [ http://en.wikiped...Hedenius ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2015
@Returners, Lari-Ann: Despite your theological claims, science observably works and has been able to reject magic thinking for centuries now. There are no 'gods' or 'trolls' or 'fairies' or 'souls' or '[objective] purpose' or '[non-natural] design' or 'creation' or 'nothing', and we know all this.

Rejoice, slave, because you are set free!
Osiris1
1 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2015
Earth-centric religious fanatics are going to hate this. If they read, I mean reallllyyy read their bibles; and read GOOD bibles and not that hack job the 'King James' then they will discover the bible as true archaeological and ethnological fact in many ways. The New American Bible and Jewish Torah contain many references to extra-terrestrials. It matters little how life here evolved but that it was planted by literally the dust of the Universe. God created the Universe with parameters that filled it with life. We will find that his problem was moving from old universes to new, an act probably repeated many times as universes were budded grew went to infinity and faded away. WE were bioengineered in all likelihood about 12,500 years ago in a lab in what is now the bed of the Persian Gulf. The good bibles tell just where in the Torah! The folks who made us were filling God's Great Commission, to spread God's souls, an energy field trancending the body, throughout space.
Osiris1
1 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2015
A Jewish physicist found that if an observer 'stood' at location (0,0,0,0,subset of [a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k principle quantum numbers]) as the present universe emerged from a 'white hole' and inflated many times the 'speed of light' and took into account time dilation as the mass filled the nascent young universe; then indeed that observer would 'experience' 6 standard earth days expanding to the size our universe was at the time the oldest Bible (holy book) was given to early sentient man right after he was bio-engineered by the other sentient species carrying out the Great Commission...who themselves were in turn bio-engineered by another sentient species much further yet into the past. The original sentients in the extreme remote past near the beginning of our universe were created by God. "In my Father's House are MANY mansions!" refers to this. Each 'mansion' a world full of souls in living bodies, each soul a cell of the Universal God in an enormous body.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2015
Can you falsify the existence of God? No.

Can you falsify the existence of grodilums? No.
Do you believe in grodilums? (And if not, why not - as it is exactly by the above argument that you seem to base your belief on. See how absurd that argument is?)

Science is an activity undertaken by human beings, and ego is a common part of the human psyche. Therefore, the output of science and the content of scientific hypotheses and/or theories can be tainted by the human ego as well as by the survival instinct (need to earn a living)

And this 'bias' does not apply to the god fiction because....? At least science is actively trying to minimize bias by means of the scientific method.

but unfortunately, humans program the robots.

Google "genetic algoritms", "machine learning", "neural networks", etc. Humans may supply the framework for these - but the robots can program themselves.
howhot2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2015
How is mankind ever going to transcend the universe if he can even survive climate change?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2015
Once the Creator has the power to control all matter and energy in this unverse by his will and words, I wonder how will looking the scientific methods that can reject the facts of creation. For example dating by isotopic methods are useless to reconstruct the past without direct witnesses. It is no accident that history of civilization covers only a few millennia. There are too many non random facts in this world supporting the Creatinon. I do not know why it is so difficult for some people to conform that the denial of truth is meaningless activity.
Eddy Courant
5 / 5 (7) May 02, 2015
It's embarrassing that creationism is even still being addressed here in the 21st century.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (4) May 02, 2015
http://www.amazon...3BJ05M82

411 of 463 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Problem with debating creationists, March 16, 2005
By S. D. Weitzenhoffer
This review is from: Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction (Hardcover)

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The pro-creationist reviewers of this book clearly demonstrate this to be true.
===

ROFLMAO !!!
But, sadly, so true.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2015
@Nik_2213

Leave your meaningless pride aside and go substantially. Can you explain what is the mechanisms that preserve only benefical mutations in living organisms to be posible evolution bilion of years? I prefer succinct statement so that you yourself can understand it.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2015
@viko: The mechanisms that stabilize beneficial mutations is differential reproduction (selection), where beneficial alleles (mutations) tend to increase over generations (and sufficiently harmful ones tend to decrease). The mechanism has been known and accepted for 2 centuries.

I wouldn't say "only" positive fitness alleles are preserved over long times, because there is a large contingency in the form of variation.

- So drift may also fix alleles, usually such that are relatively neutral.

- Another mechanism is gene duplication, which is the large driver of change throughout evolutionary history. Having duplicates means that the eventual destiny of one copy can be to be modified towards other functions than the original.

That creationists do not know this is akin to pigeons that craps on the board. Your claim of "meaningless pride" (where? it was an observation!) is taking a crap on this thread. Et cetera.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.8 / 5 (5) May 03, 2015
Now, since we are asking questions, it would be pertinent for YEC creationists to address the problem that the article raises. How come there are conglomerates within conglomerates, if sediments are creationist catastrophic in nature?

I don't see any explanation, except that the first comment waves away the problem with confusing a "flood" with having no continents. But conglomerates can't arise without coastal or continental water-work of rocks!

The point of the article is that if you are an YEC, and can't abide with the fact of evolution no matter that is _is_ a fact, you have stepped into deep dodo before we get to biology. Worse than facts of geology, how would a YEC try to hide facts of cosmological observations? "Short times" ideas, mainly of "tired light" type, are rejected because they can't predict what we see! [ http://en.wikiped...ed_light ]
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2015
"The mechanisms that stabilize beneficial mutations is differential reproduction (selection), where beneficial alleles (mutations) tend to increase over gener..."

Good, but this is not true. Because the alleles are variations of given gene and exist naturaly in the gene pool of given species. They are not due to mutations. They are working togeder with embedded mechanisms for recombination of genetic information in all living organisms that provide biodiversity in the frame of species and give wonderfull results without the need of mutations.

There is no way to select minor mutations that are prevalent in nature because they not interfere with normal functions of the organisms and does not reduce the probability of organisms to leave offspring. Much stronger effect on parenting have random environmental factors,but not hereditary information. In fact the basic function of natural selection is to remove mutation that are uncompatible with normal function of the oprganisms...
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 03, 2015
... and to support the original information and health of the gene pool as long as posible.
God love beauty and biodiversity and took care of this when He created the life on Earth. God create mutual harmonious relationship between all living organisms and beauty in the living environment of His favorite creation - the man.
gkam
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2015
"He"??

Does god have a penis?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) May 03, 2015
Where did all this water from Genesis 1:1 through 1:9 go?

There is an enormous amount of chemically hydrated rock and water-based minerals in the crust and mantle, not to mention oxidized rock (silica, etc), so it's not hard to see how even a miles thick ocean could disappear into a 8 to 70 miles thick crust and oxidize or hydrate the rocks as appropriate, and we know this is true from basic geochemistry.

So, the story of the flood by the Greeks (Deucalion) and the Babylonians (Ut-Napishtim) were acknowledged as made up stories, why is it the Bible acknowledges this myth as a truth?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (2) May 04, 2015
@Nik_2213

Leave your meaningless pride aside and go substantially. Can you explain what is the mechanisms that preserve only benefical mutations in living organisms to be posible evolution bilion of years? I prefer succinct statement so that you yourself can understand it.

You've had it explained multiple times to you. You just ignore it because it contradicts what you've read into the bible to support your young earth creationist beliefs.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2015
@jsdarkdestruction

I have to agree with the lies of pseudo science? Explain it to succinctly how we can understand whether a mutation has only a positive effect and what is the mechanism of selection of these mutations? Each gene in living organisms Influences the functions of many structures in the cells and other genes sumultaniuosly that control the functions of organs and systems ot the organism. But also many different genes affect the functions of single gene. Things are very complicates and interrelated. Random variation of this gene leads to loss of information in DNA and change its functions always in an unfavorable direction.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2015
In practice to generate new complex organism or new functionality from basic predecessor, it is necessary to happen many complex modifications in the DNA in its various parts - genes and control information, so that organs and systems of the new organism to get this new functionality. For example, if you change the structure of one of the bones of the skeleton, you also must change the structure of muscles, circulatory system, lymphatic system, programming the brain, etc. This requires a sophisticated modification of DNA in many different genes and activation and synchronisation places in DNA simultaneously to make this new functional work. You need to add new information in DNA (nucleotides new) but can exclude some old information (excess nucleotides) that can interfere with the new functionality.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2015
Half hearted changes do not work and do not have any advantage for the organism, but only disadvantage. To be posible the process of evolution change must be abrupt and always must cause new complete functionality that is compatible with the old functionality. But this can not happen by rundom changes and can not be observed in real world.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
Returners claims
"God is not the author of confusion"
Which god - the he/she/it of physics we all rely upon & the immense permutations of that which results in chemistry & all the molecules we rely upon from common atoms ?

But, hey it must be Moses that made that confusion, so tell me Returners, just HOW was Moses trained to recognise ANY being that claimed to punish ALL of creation FOR EVER was really the SAME as a god that made the universe ?

Returners claims
The Bible, whether inspired or not, does not present a God of lawlessness and fancy
Evidence within the bible is against you, Eg in Samuel; god smote 50,000 ppl for looking in a box & other issues, the activities of a claimed god are MUCH more consistent with those of a Devil !

Returners claims
Even biblical miracles occur according to a Law
Really ?
So its not a attempt by primitives to rationalize why ALL beings are subject to natural selection over long time frames based on organic chemistry ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
Returners asks
Can you falsify the existence of God? No
What are the attributes of this claimed god ?

Returners asks
Does that mean believing in God, or trying to deduce the nature of God is non-scientific? No
Indeed, look at its attributes, especially that the source of ALL information of ANY so-called personal god is ONLY from the claims of men & VERY sporadic & uncaring - a Devil ?

Is this god a 'great' or lazy communicator & deals with humans well without arbitrary suffering ?

Returners claims
The postulate that God does not exist is preposterous
Not necessarily, it depends how you define that god. An all knowing merciful entity that arbitrarily spoke to Moses then made up a test which it knew would fail (Eve) so ALL life is punished for EVER, is this sane ?

Clearly there's an organising force, we describe that through mathematics, its called Physics

Clearly universe has testable attributes, NONE so far are AT ALL consistent with Moses' claim
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
viko_mx conceded
Once the Creator has the power to control all matter and energy in this unverse by his will and words, I wonder how will looking the scientific methods that can reject the facts of creation
Ah, so its only a little god this Creator doesn't have that power yet - so very impotent !

viko_mx claims
For example dating by isotopic methods are useless to reconstruct the past without direct witnesses
The Physics has a consistency which your "Creator" doesn't.

Isn't your Creator - as a personal god claimed by Moses MUCH more like a devil ?

It punished everyone for ALL time because it made up a test of Eve yet she wasn't educated eg Guile.

The "creator" knew the future so it wasnt a test, deduction show it was a rationalisation by primitives !

viko_mx claims
There are too many non random facts in this world supporting the Creatinon
No, you have it wrong, natural selection is NOT random & organic chemistry is foundational ie Self Assembly
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
viko_mx deluded or on drugs or both or some mindless emotional attachment claims
... and to support the original information and health of the gene pool as long as posible.
God love beauty and biodiversity and took care of this when He created the life on Earth. God create mutual harmonious relationship between all living organisms and beauty in the living environment of His favorite creation - the man
viko_mx just CANNOT see that all life is "Eat AND be Eaten" via acquisition of chemical energy in carbohydrates & proteins.

viko_mx hasn't noticed predators eat meat - the prey suffer & are consumed, herbivores eat plants, the (nice looking & some not so nice) plants/fungi are destroyed

Bacteria (estimate 10 million species and ALL cannibals), make food & create disease, can't viko_mx see its a dynamic of food exchange constantly fighting, constantly destroying/growing & competing.

How can viko_mx know god 'loves' when it made ALL become food for others !
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2015
No, you have it wrong, natural selection is NOT random & organic chemistry is foundational ie Self Assembly

No one evolutionist is able to explain how natural selection selects random mutations with positive efects for the organism, based on ideas consistent with the scientific reality. In reality function of natural selection is to keep the original information (health) of the gene pool as long as posible and to slow down genetic entropy. Man gets old with time, as aging gene pool of all living beings and things are not getting better but worse.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 07, 2015
God has given the recipe how to live the people, but also gave them the right to free choice. This is God's fundamental principle and manifestation of the His love to people. You protest against injustice and suffering in this world, but God is not to blame for them, and the people themselves are to blame for this because of its sinful desires or because tolerance to lawlessness in society. The main purpose of earthly life is to meet with our Creator and to prepare for his kingdom and truth. Here on earth God will separate the wheat from the chaff.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2015
viko_mx claims
No one evolutionist is able to explain how natural selection selects random mutations with positive efects for the organism, based on ideas consistent with the scientific reality
No You LIE. You have been told before but choose to ignore, pity your god didn't educate in Chemistry, please learn activation energy, equilibria conditions, reaction rates etc AND the underlying physics eg QM, which shows unequivocally the basis for the universe is probabilistic, complexity routinely arises from simplicity !

- Atoms self assemble (SA) from subatomic particles
- Molecules SA from atoms
- Functional (complex) molecules SA from simple molecules
- organisms SA from molecules

Problem all religions have is not understanding these are natural but, takes millennia to observe, we can infer a great deal from the fastest which is particles to atoms & atoms to molecules.

As you go down the list, reaction time increases, the more complexity takes longer, simple !
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2015
viko_mx claims
God has given the recipe how to live the people, but also gave them the right to free choice
No.
You can only have free choice (free will) from full & complete education - why ? Obviously so you can assess consequences of decisions & rate those decisions short vs long term etc, its called 'risk assessment' something the bible NEVER educates anyone & DIDNT educate Eve !

viko_mx show me when Eve was educated re Guile OR explained possible punishments - where ?

viko_mx claims
..His love to people
By forcing all to suffer for due to Eve - a MOST insane god !

viko_mx claims
The main purpose of earthly life is to meet with our Creator and to prepare for his kingdom and truth
You mean jesus is due back, isnt he very late, when is he due now then ?

viko_mx admission
Here on earth God will separate the wheat from the chaff
Ah ! you admit god makes so he can destroy & all WITHOUT education !

Poor Eve, she was set up by the Devil god !

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.