Creationists: Share with me your honest understanding of what Evolution is and how it works.
[b]Don't google it, don't give a snarky reply. Just share your honest understanding.
[/b]My general experience is that while creationists reject evolution, most of them don't have a very good grasp on what they're rejecting and certainly not the evidence they're rejecting, basing most of it on what they hear from their favourite youtube preachers.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
@Pikachu Not true! You skimmed the Bible, evidently! Read it again! I had to copy this chapter to show your error! Chapter 2 comes after chapter 1, and all the animals had [b]already[/b] been formed. Here in chapter 2 God summarizes and then brings the animals to Adam to name. I have highlighted these parts. God usually repeats stories 3 or 4 times in the Bible so we will have more details.
[b]Genesis 2[/b]
2 [b][big]Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.[/big][/b]
2 By the [b]seventh day[/b] God had [b]finished the work[/b] he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
[b]19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;[/b] and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
[u]Gen 1[/u] "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—[u][b]the third day[/b][/u]"
[i]Plants were made on the third day[/i]
[u]Gen 2[/u] "[b][u]Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[/u][/b][a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7[b][u] Then the Lord God formed a man[/u][/b][c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. [i][b][u]Now [/u][/b][/i]the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
[i]Man was created when "no plant had yet sprung up".[/i]
[u]Gen 1[/u]
" So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
[i]God creates both man and woman on the the 6th day[/i]
[u]Gen 2[/u]
" Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
[i]Adam is created before the other animals, Eve is created after the other animals.[/i]
It's just great that there are more details but the details are contradictory.
I am responding to your comment on Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, since you think it has contradictions. I am not responding to your post question since I already have responded so thoroughly to that on other occasions.
If you didn't skim Genesis 1 and 2, then you misunderstood it. Let me explain,
Genesis Chapter 1 is [i]chronological summary[/i]; Genesis Chapter 2 is [i]highlighting specific details[/i] to give us more information about various days of creation, skipping certain parts. This can be confusing. But that's how it is! God gives us 3 or 4 different accounts of an event usually, so we fully understand it. It is not contradicting, even if it appears to be. 🙂 These are very meaty chapters and have much information, they even tell us the ending for those who search it out, "I declare the end from the beginning" Isaiah 45:10
In Genesis 2:2 it says that "By the 7th day God completed the work he had done" and in Gen 2:4 it says "This is the account of how God created the heavens and the earth, giving us a recap. Then it goes into details on the 3rd day, and then skips to the 6th day.
[quote]Gen 1 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day"
Plants were made on the third day. [/quote]
Yes, all vegetation was created on the 3rd day! [quote]Gen 2 "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
Man was created when "no plant had yet sprung up". [/quote]
No God is highlighting what happened on day 3, Gen 2:5-6, when God sends streams to water the plants before He puts man in the garden of Eden. He created the animals and Adam and Eve on day 6 after he created food for them on day 3. This does not contradict Genesis 1 day 3, and Day 6, it's just explaining the setting for the garden. He has already told us about day 5 and 6 how he created animals in Genesis 1 but will also go into more detail about the animals in Gen 2:20 after Adam was formed.
[quote]Gen 1
" So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
God creates both man and woman on the the 6th day[/quote]
Yes, all the land animals and both Adam and Eve were created on the 6th day.
[quote]Gen 2
" Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."
Adam is created before the other animals, Eve is created after the other animals.[/quote]
No, in Gen 2:20-22 God tells us more specifically what happened to the animals that were created on day 5 and 6, that he brought them to Adam to name and he formed Eve and brought her to Adam on day 6. It does not contradict Genesis 1 Day 5, and Day 6. It [i]explains[/i] it.
[quote]It's just great that there are more details but the details are contradictory. [/quote]
There are no contradictions!
Why are you so eager for contradictions? What purpose does that serve you?
[quote]It is not contradicting, even if it appears to be. [/quote]
Ok, i think i can get behind that. I'm not 100% on it because it reminds me of the way any fan may explain away mistakes in the work of an author they like but i find that a convincing perspective.
I'm not eager for contradictions. I just casually brought it up lol
@Pikachu Good to know! Casually mentioning the Bible has "contradictions" is serious! Are there other parts that you think are contradicting in the Bible? If so, we can address them too?
[quote] mentioning the Bible has "contradictions" is serious! [/quote]
To you, not to me😉 In the same way that saying to an LOTR fan that the eagles should have taken the ring to Mordor fires them up but is a non-issue to people who aren't fans of the story.
There are contradictions and failed prophecies abundant in the bible but this is not a thread devoted to those.
I actually would be interested to hear what you understand evolution to be and how it works without googling a definition.
@Pikachu Me googling from a scientific article or writing my own critique, will still get me mocked by people here who are not familiar with evolution theory, because I am a Christian, and I criticize it.
Life changes all the time, and it does so quickly, variants to a virus in a few weeks is a good example, not "millions" of years. Evolution theory is adaptation to change, and I believe in that, just not the way some say. According to evolution theory we evolved from a single organism over a long time. This is false, as i think covid virus has proven.
Glad you can't find any other "contradictions" in the Bible 👍
[quote], variants to a virus in a few weeks is a good example, not "millions" of years.[/quote]
Why do you think that might be? Why would a virus which produces hundreds of generations in a few days change over weeks while animals that take years to produce one single generation might take longer? Already we've identified an gap in the understanding of how evolution works: Generation time.
[quote]. Evolution theory is adaptation to change[/quote]
That's right...but what scientific mechanism do you apply to determine how much adaptation can occur? What metric can you use to say that life can change [i]x amount[/i] and no more?
[quote]Glad you can't find any other "contradictions" in the Bible[/quote]
lol you know that's not what i said. Don't try to provoke me.
@Pikachu There is no evidence of millions or billions of years of anything. Infact no community has been identified older than the Bible says humans have been alive, verifying again the Bible is accurate.
Change happens quickly, and there is no evidence of a species changing into another species. Cats and dogs don't breed.
It's dangerous to say there are contradictions in the Bible because it isn't true, and the consequences of that are devastating to [i]you[/i], whether you realize it or not! Much more devastating than if i get excited about a movie or not.
I care about you, and people here and don't want devastating consequences for you or anyone else. 🙂
[quote]There is no evidence of millions or billions of years of anything. [/quote]
Radiometric dating, for one. Which is used by Big Oil to reliably locate deposits of oil and coal. All modeled and successfully extracted by using methods that show millions of years of life and billions of years of age for the planet.
Furthermore, various forms of radiometric dating are corroborated not only by each other but by non radiometric means including tree rings and ice varves. These other measures overlap with each other as well. I can pull up a graphic for you in a minute.
[quote]and there is no evidence of a species changing into another species. [/quote]
Well again, i think you're probably thinking of a higher taxonomic level than species because we've observed speciation even in a laboratory. We've even seen something change from a single-celled organism into a multicellular organism...that sounds like a [i]least[/i] a change in species lol.
[quote]Cats and dogs don't breed.[/quote]
Ah, now we're really getting into some stuff this thread was meant for! On your understanding of evolution, does the theory suggest that organisms belonging not just to different species but different families entirely should be able to interbreed? Canidae and Felidae for example?
[quote]There is no evidence of millions or billions of years of anything.[/quote]
So what se see here are dates that are arrived at by using radiometric dating (the range created by the blue lines), dates using tree ring analysis (red dots) and dates using ice varves (green dots). As you can see they all seem to line up extraordinarily well. What's more, we [i]know[/i] that varves and tree rings are reliable dating methods because they have been used to accurately determine [i]to a calendar date[/i] known natural disasters like Mount Saint Helens and even the eruption of Mount Vesuvius at Pompeii! And these known reliable methods are also corroborating dates achieved through radiometric dating. Why do you suppose they would all line up so well and be giving dates of tens of thousands of years older than the age of the earth under YEC? To be clear, this is not the only study you can find with these results.
@Pikachu This is so interesting but does not prove your point. Infact, it proves my point. Mt Vesuvius eruption 79 AD is very interesting to visit I love going to Pompeii!
There is a lot of evidence when it happened, artifacts like pots, and homes, and bathrooms, etc have you been there? It's one thing to study a town and see[b] numerous [/b] evidence for the year the volcano happened, and it is entirely another thing to believe ONE piece of "radiometric dating" and jump to conclusion and say the earth is millions of years old. It is nonsense! I am not gullible!
lol i think you might be wrong about that but do please go ahead and explain your reasoning.
[quote] to believe ONE piece of "radiometric dating"[/quote]
But that's not the scenario by any stretch of the imagination. We're talking thousands of points of data which are corroborated by independent forms of radiometric dating (it's not all one element, i'm sure you know) AND those dates are further corroborated by non radiometric means which are themselves known to be reliable.
So please explain how this actually proves your point and not mine. I have to admit, i'm pretty curious lol
@Pikachu You throw questions out but don't answer mine. It's ok, I think I made my points a few times already today and its only 7 am. I'm going to have breakfast! ✌️
Umm do you mean like the question Have i been to Pompeii? No, i have not been lol.
Sorry, in an effort to keep these posts from growing exponentially i do try to focus on the relevant aspects and i do make an effort to answer your questions when you make it clear that you're still looking for an answer.
[quote] I think I made my points a few times already today[/quote]
lol now, now. You wouldn't be shying away from backing up that [i]very [/i]bold claim you just made, would you? Apparently this data is actually proving [i]your [/i]point and it would be only polite to explain such a brassy assertion. I'll answer whatever question you feel i've missed but i think we can go no further until you answer how these data are actually in support of your position rather than [i]explicitly [/i]undermining it.
You enjoy your breakfast, i'll talk to you later✌️
Oh by the way science just confirmed what God told us in the Bible 5000 years ago to fast and pray. Now lots of science research testifies that fasting kicks in a health gene.
Well Christians knew a long time ago that fasting is a necessity for good health because we read the Bible.
Please consider that all Christian countries thrive and are rich because of their faith and smart scientists, and atheistic countries which are poor and their leader in South Korea, China, and Russia, are violent, and their people try to flee to Christian countries.
I think I made myself clear regarding why dating anything millions of years or evolution is not possible.
However, I will check out some other posts you've written that are also false 😂
[quote]I think I made myself clear regarding why dating anything millions of years or evolution is not possible.[/quote]
You have indeed made yourself clear that you think and old earth is not possible: "[i]It is nonsense! I am not gullible![/i]" You have NOT, however made an argument here about [i]why[/i] these conclusions are not possible.😏
If i'm being honest i am getting the definite impression that you are deliberately avoiding giving a straight answer to this. You made the claim that this data actually supports a young earth and now you're refusing to say why? Hmmm...
I'm not expecting you to agree that you're wrong and the earth is old but i am expecting you to show the honesty of backing up the very bold claim you made.
Remember yesterday when i admitted that while i wasn't totally convinced, i thought you made a good argument for Gen 1 and 2 being complimentary? Show me that level of intellectual honesty here. Please either explain why you feel the data i shared indeed supports YEC rather than an old earth or admit that you cannot at this time explain why the data seem to converge on an old earth.
I gotta say, i'm a little disappointed here. I know dishonest people like godspeed will refuse point blank to give a straight answer to a straight question but i didn't think you would emulate them. Maybe you're just hungry lol.
Thanks for giving me the benefit that I might be right about Gen 1 and 2. That is gracious of you!
I have not shared here, but on other numerous occasions why I believe the earth and humanity is young.
1. Gods word tells us all the generations by name from Adam to Jesus. And Jesus died 2000 years ago almost exactly 4000+2000= 6000. I will admit there might be room for an older earth in the first few chapters, but I trust the literal word of God. Because when we use the actual birth dates of each person in the Old Testament we come to some amazing results for today and fulfilled prophesies that we do not come to when we think that all the numbers in the Bible are there for no reason, willy nilly. 2. No communities are found older than 6000 years, just as God says in the Bible. They try to convince us about some pot found that they use to convince you the Bible must be wrong but its just not provable. With communities there are numerous evidence, like Pompeii like you mentioned. 3. The earth changes fast, not slowly like they thought. Earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods have changed the earth quickly and appears old. We can see changes ourselves doing experiments. 4. There are many assumptions with Geometric dating. There are always environmental factors that change that we do not know. There are a lot of assumptions like environmental factors are stable. They are not. 5. Similarities in genes, or bones, do not necessarily equal [i]cause.[/i] Too many assumptions. 6. If there is no creation, then explain how the first cell evolved?
These are just a few reasons why I don't believe in an old earth and macro evolution, changes from one species to another species. I believe in creation. It has less assumptions!
And i have some issues and pushback with a number of those claims and we've discussed them before and we can discuss them later if you like. But right now i am still distressed by your refusal to give me a straight answer on the specific subject at hand. I showed you how three independent methods of dating that reliably give real world results AND corroborate each other which converge on an ancient earth....and your response was that it's nonsense and that it actually supports a YEC worldview...but you continue to refuse to explain how.
I'm not letting that go. You can admit that you don't have an answer. Even AiG has admitted when they don't have answers.
So let me ask you this straight question and if you are honest you will give me a straight answer:
[i][b]How does the synthesis of data from radiometric dating, tree rings and ice varves which are shown to accurately date known historical events, corroborate the dates from the other two methods and all converge on an ancient earth support YEC rather than an old earth as you claimed that they do?[/b][/i]
