Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[pogi]

A couple of difficulties are solved with the flood model. One is how animals appear to have been frozen very quickly, often with undigested food in their stomachs. Two, is the ice age itself, the climate cycles themselves don't account for vast amount of energy needed to create the ice and glaciers that built up. What typically happens is as the Earth's climate cools, so also does the evaporation, leaving the planet cooler but dry, with very little precipitation. Without precipitation glaciers won't form. In the flood model, the warm wet air hitting the cooler poles creates a huge source for large glaciers to form. The same phenomena is observed in Greenland when a warm tropical storm hits it.

As for biblical evidence, the observations of the writers don't cover the change in climate. However, the change in life spans and sizes of animals is observed.

 

Cal already addressed your first point.  A flood model actually would do harm to the idea of animals freezing "very quickly".  It would have taken much more time for an animal to freeze solid in flood water, than for an animal to freeze on an ice cap in sub-zero temperatures, then get covered with snow and ice.  A dead body will sink for a few days until decomposition begins, which creates gases in the body (no freezing down below), the body will then float to the top and after only 8 days in cold water, decomposition will have progressed rapidly, after 20 days, DNA analysis would be needed to identify the person.  Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post/how-long-do-dead-bodies-remain-inta-2009-06-10/?id=how-long-do-dead-bodies-remain-inta-2009-06-10

 

It would take much longer than that for oceanic ice to form several feet deep from relatively warm flood waters to cover, say a mammoth.  Decomposition would win that race I am afraid.

 

To your second point, ice ages do not eradicate evaporation, there are still warmer places on the globe that supply colder regions with moisture.  The transition happens slowly, so the bulk of the snow buildup happens earlier, then the colder air preserves the snow and ice later.  Evaporation will slow down eventually, which actually helps to preserve the snow and ice already formed. 

 

Question:  Where is the "warm air" coming from in your model?  I thought you said it got really cold?  How is "warm air" going to freeze the oceans and instantly preserve drowned animal corpses?  For an "ice age" you need global cooling or all of your snow and ice will not advance, but will melt down to previous levels. 

 

What do you mean by "different sizes of animals were observed."  Are you suggesting they evolved?

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[Calm]

Why don't we know it now? Why doesn't the evidence point to it? It is not as if when the first differences were first discovered, those studying it didn't believe in God and were attempting to disprove his existence. Why would someone who believes in God and desires to see his hand in all things (and does in fact as I know a number of faithful LDS scientist who have that view) be so wrong in understanding what God has left behind for us to study as his work?

[Calm]

It doesn't claim that Man observed it. Rather, the Genesis account describes what God did during creation, as a reference for doctrine. Even Jesus referenced the beginning, where God created them male and female. It's likely this was taught to Adam and passed down.

So it does not portray what they observed, but what they were told.

There is a difference, especially depending on the process of how they were told.

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[JLHPROF]

This does not address the problem of the evidence and why God would choose to make it look different.

 

 

You're assuming God was the one made it look different....

 

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets (scientists), and shall shew great signs (data) and wonders (theories); insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

3 Nephi 2

2 Imagining up some vain thing in their hearts (theorizing), that it was wrought by men and by the power of the devil (hypotheses) , to lead away and deceive the hearts of the people; and thus did Satan get possession of the hearts of the people again, insomuch that he did blind their eyes and lead them away to believe that the doctrine of Christ (miracles) was a foolish and a vain thing (unscientific).

3 And it came to pass that the people began to wax strong in wickedness and abominations; and they did not believe that there should be any more signs or wonders given (miracles); and Satan did go about, leading away the hearts of the people, tempting them and causing them that they should do great wickedness in the land.

See also II Thes 2:9-11.

 

Just to be clear, I am playing devils advocate and throwing out a little exaggeration.  I am not anti-science, nor do I necessarily think all science is from the Devil.  But I am just not so quick to ignore the miracles recorded in God's word in favor of man's observations.

Remember the warning of I Timothy 6

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

[Calm]

I see no evidence of that in his reply.

But if he had?

[Uncle Dale]

While it doesn't claim to be a science text, nor does anyone claim that it is either. And while it will never have "sufficient" data to satisfy the curiosity of many of us. What it does do is accurately portray what they observed. Your belief is probably opposed to this idea, and that's fine. However, calling it "inaccurate" is quite a leap of faith. You can believe what you wish. But, without actual data to demonstrate their observations as false, It continues to be a reliable source for what they experienced and observed. 

 

OK -- If we go by that standard, then the entire library in ancient Alexandria 

would have been just as useful. After all, the Bible is but a miniature library.

 

So, if we look to the biblical writers for their observations, deductions, opinions,

etc., then we are making a mistake by limiting ourselves to examining such a

miniscule portion of the writings from antiquity.

 

Why turn to that tiny library, as furnishing us with accurate information about

the past, generally speaking, than the greater collection of preserved ancient

texts? Again, if we wish to know how many times Joshua circled the walls of

Jericho, the Hebrew Bible is the place to look. If we wish to know what the climate

of the known world was, when Joshua performed that miracle, then the Bible is

not the best place to go looking for ancient information.

 

Correct?

 

UD

[ERayR]

Someday we will come to know the global flood actually did happen and evolution is false along with most of that science.

 

As long as you debate evolution in general you are in trouble.  Your opponent takes something that is provable (micro-evolution) attaches it to macro0-evolution under the generic heading of evolution add some creative extrapolations(which are unprovable) and declare victory. 

[Calm]

You're assuming God was the one made it look different....

See also II Thes 2:9-11.

Just to be clear, I am playing devils advocate and throwing out a little exaggeration. I am not anti-science, nor do I necessarily think all science is from the Devil. But I am just not so quick to ignore the miracles recorded in God's word in favor of man's observations.

Remember the warning of I Timothy 6

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

But there are in my experience plenty of believing scientists with hands on experience who accept the evidence as pointing to a much longer existence of earth and man than 6000 years. They are not just observing in a lab or reading out of a textbook but going out and seeing how things work in the real world...and discovering oil, fossils and other geological stuff based on the scientific methods and concepts they were taught.

My home teacher up in Canada was a geologist who would go out in the field (we have buckets full of rocks he collected as noteworthy but had to get rid of when moving as well as some great bear stories as well as some very cool looking rocks dubbed hedgehog that at the time only a dozen or so people in the world were aware of given their limited location and understanding as to how they were formed), my current bishop is a biologist involved in research.

Edited February 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[pogi]

Someday we will come to know the global flood actually did happen and evolution is false along with most of that science.

 

I thought you said you were not dogmatic in your interpretation of scripture?  Could have fooled me.

[pogi]

As long as you debate evolution in general you are in trouble.  Your opponent takes something that is provable (micro-evolution) attaches it to macro0-evolution under the generic heading of evolution add some creative extrapolations(which are unprovable) and declare victory. 

 

I agree with this.  I disagree with anyone who claims that evolution has been "proven", it has not been proven.  In fact, I disagree with the conclusions of many biologists in terms of "random mutation" which several biologists are now questioning, but so far the biologists have given me a seemingly viable model, whereas God has remained silent on the matter.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

I agree with this.  I disagree with anyone who claims that evolution has been "proven", it has not been proven.  In fact, I disagree with the conclusions of many biologists in terms of "random mutation", but so far the biologists have given me a seemingly viable model whereas God has remained silent on the matter. 

 

I can go with this.  However, to me macro-evolution (even directed) creates more problems than it solves.

[Calm]

"Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

The methods of science as known today didn't really exist back then. I would be careful in assuming just what they were talking about.

[Calm]

This may have been missed as I added it. Serious question, I have asked it before but don't remember it ever being answered though I may have missed it:

Is there any evidence that the Jews believed prior to the discovery that the continents were once closer together that the lands were separated physically in the days of Peleg? The only stuff I've come across, such as Louis Ginsburg's Legends of the Jews refers to the splitting as a national one, iirc.

I would be very curious to see much earlier interpretations indicating the belief the continents were ripped apart in Peleg's days as observed as you claim by if not the writers, but those whose traditions they wrote down.

[pogi]

I can go with this.  However, to me macro-evolution (even directed) creates more problems than it solves.

 

How so?

[Rob Osborn]

As long as you debate evolution in general you are in trouble.  Your opponent takes something that is provable (micro-evolution) attaches it to macro0-evolution under the generic heading of evolution add some creative extrapolations(which are unprovable) and declare victory.

And in the end, after all of their energy is laid out, its easy to just say they are wrong and move on.

[pogi]

And in the end, after all of their energy is laid out, its easy to just say they are wrong and move on.

 

See post 209.

 

The easiest path is not always the right path or the path worth taking.

[Rob Osborn]

I thought you said you were not dogmatic in your interpretation of scripture?  Could have fooled me.

So, its dogmatic to look at the evidence and realize that the flood is plausible? Hum....

[pogi]

So, its dogmatic to look at the evidence and realize that the flood is plausible? Hum....

 

Actually, you said:

 

Someday we will come to know the global flood actually did happen and evolution is false along with most of that science.

 

Then you said:

 

And in the end, after all of their energy is laid out, its easy to just say they are wrong and move on.

 

No "plausible" found.  Do you see the irony now?  You sound just like the science freaks.

 

If it is plausible, then demonstrate how...refute my argument.  Instead you turn to "they are wrong" etc. Very definitive statements with no room for possible error.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

Actually, you said:

 

 

Then you said:

 

 

No "plausible" found.  Do you see the irony now?  You sound just like the science freaks.

 

If it is plausible, then demonstrate how...refute my argument.  Instead you turn to "they are wrong" etc. Very definitive statements with no room for possible error.

Demonstrarte how a global flood is plausible? Is that what you are asking?

[ERayR]

How so?

 

I have stated before that I think macro-evolution destroys  the concept of the fall and if it goes  then so does the need for a savior and an atonement.  I know that some solve the problem by looking on them as symbolic.  That approach doesn't work for me.  If the fall is symbolic then the atonement has to be symbolic.  If that is the case then Christ did not need to suffer and die for symbolism.  To me it is real or it isn't.  As far as the atonement is concerned there is no middle ground, it was real or it wasn't.  To believe in it as symbolic would cause more cognitive dissonance than I want.

[pogi]

Demonstrarte how a global flood is plausible? Is that what you are asking?

 

I am saying that you have made several claims that have been rebutted (see post 201).  Instead of defending your position, you resort to  "they are wrong".  Show me the evidence. 

 

The silly thing is, if you would simply say "I take it on faith" I would lay off, but if you are going to try and support your theory using scientific evidence, then I want you to supply the evidence for examination and scrutiny.  It seems that when your evidence is examined with scrutiny, you shut down and become dogmatic about it without giving any "plausible" explanations.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

And in the end, after all of their energy is laid out, its easy to just say they are wrong and move on.

 

If that is what works for you then go with it but know that isn't a good debate strategy.

[ERayR]

I am saying that you have made several claims that have been rebutted (see post 201).  Instead of defending your position, you resort to  "they are wrong".  Show me the evidence. 

 

The silly thing is, if you would simply say "I take it on faith" I would lay off, but if you are going to try and support your theory using scientific evidence, then I want you to supply the evidence for examination and scrutiny.  It seems that when your evidence is examined with scrutiny, you shut down and become dogmatic about it without giving any "plausible" explanations.

 

To support a religious position using scientific evidence is not reasonable (although we all do it at times) as science gathers information to exclude religion.  It is also (for the same reason) not valid for someone to claim science rebuts religion.

[pogi]

I have stated before that I think macro-evolution destroys  the concept of the fall and if it goes  then so does the need for a savior and an atonement.  I know that some solve the problem by looking on them as symbolic.  That approach doesn't work for me.  If the fall is symbolic then the atonement has to be symbolic.  If that is the case then Christ did not need to suffer and die for symbolism.  To me it is real or it isn't.  As far as the atonement is concerned there is no middle ground, it was real or it wasn't.  To believe in it as symbolic would cause more cognitive dissonance than I want.

 

I don't view the fall as symbolic either.  Perhaps I am not remembering the problem you see here.  Why is it a problem to view Adam and Eve as the first of God's literal spirit offspring through an evolutionary model?

[pogi]

To support a religious position using scientific evidence is not reasonable (although we all do it at times) as science gathers information to exclude religion.  It is also (for the same reason) not valid for someone to claim science rebuts religion.

 

I have never really understood this mindset.  Science does not and cannot prove or disprove religion, but it can offer support for or against religious claims.  Our religious understanding is constantly evolving through scientific discoveries.