 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Re: "Lucifer's Flood"... |
Ventureforth |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I've never heard it called that (though it sounds like Dake's Pre-Adamite existence theory).
One of the strongest things going for evolutionary theory is that fact that the layers of earth are characterized by containing certain life forms...and NOT others. We see a gradual move toward more complex lifeforms the higher we go in the layers.
If we all arrived at the same time, then it is logical to conclude that you could not characterize one layer as having only X type of lifeforms (or perhaps saying it does NOT contain X type of lifeforms). But as it is, these multiple layers are clearly different.
If Noah's flood killed everything and it all got covered over by sediment, you would expect to see all lifeforms (presumably) in the same layer. As it is, it is so unusual that finding some things together in the same strata can lead to claims of trickery or inappropriate science. |
Are you referring to the geologic column? |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/24/13 10:04 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Cojak |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: |
Bard is over the top often - and I have asked him to tone it down. He has good ideas - but his presentation is lacking for a message board.
He doesn't take my advice too well. 
. |
I am just reading but I had to smile at this one.
Yeah, NBF, he seems to have a mind of his own.  This one is fun but pretty confusing for a bench sitter. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
8/24/13 11:08 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Lucifer’s Flood of the ‘Gap Theory’ |
dtgrant |
Quote Aaron Scott:
| Quote: | | “However, I would add that a flood would not DESTROY layers...but would likely serve to CREATE them. That is, sediment would be layed down.” |
The doctrine of the Gap Theory declares Lucifer’s Flood was a judgment of total destruction upon the earth. Genesis 1:2 is their ‘proof text’.
Genesis 1:2 (KJV)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(donnie & terri grant) |
Friendly Face
Posts: 236
8/25/13 6:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: "Lucifer's Flood"... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I've never heard it called that (though it sounds like Dake's Pre-Adamite existence theory).
However, I would add that a flood would not DESTROY layers...but would likely serve to CREATE them. That is, sediment would be layed down.
One of the strongest things going for evolutionary theory is that fact that the layers of earth are characterized by containing certain life forms...and NOT others. We see a gradual move toward more complex lifeforms the higher we go in the layers.
If we all arrived at the same time, then it is logical to conclude that you could not characterize one layer as having only X type of lifeforms (or perhaps saying it does NOT contain X type of lifeforms). But as it is, these multiple layers are clearly different.
If Noah's flood killed everything and it all got covered over by sediment, you would expect to see all lifeforms (presumably) in the same layer. As it is, it is so unusual that finding some things together in the same strata can lead to claims of trickery or inappropriate science. |
Totally agree that the layers clearly demonstrate something. And it demonstrates that evolution could not have possibly occurred. If so, and these layers truly showed life forms over time - we would see the millions of years of transition where legs began to form, where eyeballs developed, where fingers began to emerge...EXCEPT all of the lifeforms that we have fossils of (and there are millions) don't show ANY of this. They are always fully developed - and appear just as they ended up. If there were truly billions of years of the earth - and evolution was truly occurring - there would be an EVEN distribution of all types of life forms transitioning to fins, to wings , to legs, to eyeballs ... except it NEVER occurs - not even once. All are always fully developed. No wings - then fully functioning wings...No legs at all then fully functioning with toes etc. Surely this took 100s of millions of years to EVOLVE. And we would see all types of the transitions ... except we don't see any of it.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/25/13 1:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
The problem is that it DOES happen...but we would adamantly refuse to acknowledge it. For instance, if we saw a dog with a third eye (say), we wouldn't say, "Hey, evolution is taking place." No, we'd say, "This dog is deformed." OR--and this is probably more likely--we'd say, "Hey, here's a new species we haven't seen before."
The whole notion of seeing intermediate fossils is somewhat flawed in that we have no idea what to look for, fossils are already few and far between (that is, not everything fossilizes), and then we would "define" it such that no matter what we found, we'd not accept that it was anything special.
Consider that the an "intermediate" steps from Point A to Point ZZZZ are usually very, very, very small. Sometimes, they aren't even things that would be captured in fossilization (e.g., perhaps the coloring of the animal). So if we see a frog with some small variation--one that might later have led to another variation...to another...to another...and so on--we would likely not even accept that it would be so.
What we are looking for--and which we will almost certainly not find--is a fossil that looks like A AND ZZZZ. But by the time ZZZZ comes around, millions of generations could have taken place, and it not even look remotely like A.
Then, of course, unless the change is DRAMATIC, we don't even count it as an evolutionary step. So it's almost an unwinnable point. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/25/13 2:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: "Lucifer's Flood"... |
Ventureforth |
| Ventureforth wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I've never heard it called that (though it sounds like Dake's Pre-Adamite existence theory).
One of the strongest things going for evolutionary theory is that fact that the layers of earth are characterized by containing certain life forms...and NOT others. We see a gradual move toward more complex lifeforms the higher we go in the layers.
If we all arrived at the same time, then it is logical to conclude that you could not characterize one layer as having only X type of lifeforms (or perhaps saying it does NOT contain X type of lifeforms). But as it is, these multiple layers are clearly different.
If Noah's flood killed everything and it all got covered over by sediment, you would expect to see all lifeforms (presumably) in the same layer. As it is, it is so unusual that finding some things together in the same strata can lead to claims of trickery or inappropriate science. |
Are you referring to the geologic column? |
Second request.
| Quote: | The whole notion of seeing intermediate fossils is somewhat flawed in that we have no idea what to look for, fossils are already few and far between (that is, not everything fossilizes), and then we would "define" it such that no matter what we found, we'd not accept that it was anything special.
Consider that the an "intermediate" steps from Point A to Point ZZZZ are usually very, very, very small. Sometimes, they aren't even things that would be captured in fossilization (e.g., perhaps the coloring of the animal). So if we see a frog with some small variation--one that might later have led to another variation...to another...to another...and so on--we would likely not even accept that it would be so.
What we are looking for--and which we will almost certainly not find--is a fossil that looks like A AND ZZZZ. But by the time ZZZZ comes around, millions of generations could have taken place, and it not even look remotely like A.
Then, of course, unless the change is DRAMATIC, we don't even count it as an evolutionary step. So it's almost an unwinnable point. |
So are you saying that there's not enough evidence with the fossil record to substantiate the transitions in macro evolution? And don't you agree that the fossil record is open to interpretation to a certain extent? |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
8/25/13 5:42 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: NBF... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The problem is that it DOES happen...but we would adamantly refuse to acknowledge it. For instance, if we saw a dog with a third eye (say), we wouldn't say, "Hey, evolution is taking place." No, we'd say, "This dog is deformed." OR--and this is probably more likely--we'd say, "Hey, here's a new species we haven't seen before."
The whole notion of seeing intermediate fossils is somewhat flawed in that we have no idea what to look for, fossils are already few and far between (that is, not everything fossilizes), and then we would "define" it such that no matter what we found, we'd not accept that it was anything special.
Consider that the an "intermediate" steps from Point A to Point ZZZZ are usually very, very, very small. Sometimes, they aren't even things that would be captured in fossilization (e.g., perhaps the coloring of the animal). So if we see a frog with some small variation--one that might later have led to another variation...to another...to another...and so on--we would likely not even accept that it would be so.
What we are looking for--and which we will almost certainly not find--is a fossil that looks like A AND ZZZZ. But by the time ZZZZ comes around, millions of generations could have taken place, and it not even look remotely like A.
Then, of course, unless the change is DRAMATIC, we don't even count it as an evolutionary step. So it's almost an unwinnable point. |
Sorry Aaron. You simply don't get it.
Show us any gradual change - any at all - any amoeba in the stages of changing to a fish (or perhaps a tadpole) - we got millions of amoebas - and millions of fish - and absolutely nothing in between.
This gradual change that you speak of - without anyone noticing - please show the documentation for it.
It simply isn't there.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/25/13 6:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| NBF...it's just logical |
Aaron Scott |
If ANY mutation occurs at all in, say, a frog, then it makes sense that IF that mutated frog survives and reproduces, that trait may be passed on. That later frog now has the mutation...and it might also have yet another mutation on top of that.
If that mutation gives the frog some sort of advantage--even in attracting a mate--then that frog's genes (mutation and all) would be passed on...awaiting future mutations in later generations.
Again, we don't see the transitional fossils you want because we have ALREADY DECIDED that a "frog with wings" (so to speak) will NOT be considered a frog or some intermediate step. We will immediately classify it as a separate species.
Tell me EXACTLY what sort of fossil, if found, would make you think large-scale evolution took place? Don't forget, if you say "a winged frog," there may never have even BEEN a winged frog. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/25/13 8:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| mutations |
diakoneo |
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm
| Quote: | Mutations are alterations of genetic material. They occur frequently during DNA duplication in cell division. This should not be surprising considering the fact that mitosis and meiosis are essentially mechanical processes with many complex operations that must be precisely completed in order for duplicate DNA molecules to be created. There are four common categories of mutations:
1. DNA base substitution, insertion, and deletion
2. unequal crossing-over and related structural modifications of chromosomes
3. partial or complete gene inversion and duplication
4. irregular numbers of chromosomes
Substitutions, insertions, and deletions of single bases are common. For example, an adenine can be accidentally substituted for a guanine in a sequence of bases. Such small errors in copying DNA are referred to as point mutations. There is a self correcting mechanism in DNA replication that repairs these small errors, but it does not always find every one of them. |
Does this not imply that mutations are basically accidents?
So then, if we have enough accidents we come up with the wonderful world of order we have now!
Yeah, that makes perfect sense  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/25/13 9:50 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| diakeneo... |
Aaron Scott |
Indeed, evolution theory is FULL of successful accidents. For instance, if a particular mutation causes a particular bird to have more flamboyant feathers than his peers, he may have an advantage in attracting mates. He might not even be the strongest or best version of those types of birds, but, because of his mutation, he is the one that is most successful in passing on his genes.
Think of it this way.... We read about some men who, unable to even support themselves, have 20 children. They are NOT the ultimate male by any means...but whatever it is they have (including very ignorant mates), it gave them an advantage. So now we have 20 little kids running around with the same genes as their ne'er do well father. Nice.
I used to make the same argument you are making. After all, most mutations are harmful, we know. But if a single mutation gives an animal some advantage, that animal not only may survive long enough to pass on his genes, but may be more attractive to mates.
Again, there may have been animals in the distant past that are far superior in some way to what we have today. One point of evolution is NOT survival of the best...but survival of the fittest (i.e., the animal that best fits the environment, is best able to survive in it, is best able to reproduce, etc.).
ADDENDUM: Consider that the T-Rex was what we would likely call the ultimate apex predator. But for some reason, he is gone. He was not able to survive whatever it was that destroyed them (comet strike? weather? cold? etc.?). Yet plenty of other, much more timid animals, DID survive to today. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/26/13 5:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
So God the omnipotent and omniscient chose billions of accidents to give us the world we now enjoy and chose to deliberately come to us in human flesh to redeem this accidental world? !
Should I make the assumption, then, that most sins are just accidents?
In order to make pseudoscience compatible with the word of God much strange contorting must occur
It is much easier for me to believe young earth than to somehow mix the theory of evolution with the Bible. The folks that came up with Evolution theory came to the table believing in NO God. They began at the evidence with extreme bias, not very good science. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/26/13 6:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| diakeneo... |
Aaron Scott |
Do you think that a child born with some dread disease is the result of an omnipotent and omniscient God?
Further, to say that evolution took place is NOT to say that God had not hand in guiding it, nor is it to say that God did not, right in the middle of this river of evolution, step in an CREATE things as He saw fit.
Moreover, to try to make it appear that anyone who believes that evolution took place is somehow denigrating the sacrifice of Jesus...well, that's how "Answers in Genesis" seems to play. I don't play that way. I want the TRUTH. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/26/13 6:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
To try to answer a question regarding the impossible combination of Evolution theory and creation is very difficult. The two are incompatible I am afraid.
I was not trying to use the tactics of aig. I just find the logic not so logical.
If you want the truth, start with God's word and work with the evidence and not the other way around. His word is forever. This world has done a lot of changing and is still doing a lot of changing.
Scientist seeing the climate changing have caused quite a stir recently...and they still haven't really figured it out. Global cooling, global warming, and now just climate change. Hmmm seems kind of fickle to me  |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
8/26/13 6:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: NBF...it's just logical |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | If ANY mutation occurs at all in, say, a frog, then it makes sense that IF that mutated frog survives and reproduces, that trait may be passed on. That later frog now has the mutation...and it might also have yet another mutation on top of that.
If that mutation gives the frog some sort of advantage--even in attracting a mate--then that frog's genes (mutation and all) would be passed on...awaiting future mutations in later generations.
Again, we don't see the transitional fossils you want because we have ALREADY DECIDED that a "frog with wings" (so to speak) will NOT be considered a frog or some intermediate step. We will immediately classify it as a separate species.
Tell me EXACTLY what sort of fossil, if found, would make you think large-scale evolution took place? Don't forget, if you say "a winged frog," there may never have even BEEN a winged frog. |
Sorry Aaron. You are here hoping to come up with one example that shows a transition - when there should be millions. You prove my point - the evidence should be overwhelming - andit isn't. Perhaps you will trot out piltdown man or some such "mutated" champion - but that is exactly what proves the point mathematically. Finding one misses the point. There should be an even distribution. Please produce your champion of species in transition - finding a snail and a horse is NOT proof that snails turned into horses. It's just that snails suddenly appear and horses suddenly appear in the fossil record - and they are NOT related.
Seriously, mutations - DNA defects - is how you believe the species diversification is formed? Perhaps if we started with the most complex and mutated downward - you might have a case to make - yet evolution (and you) purports the fossil record shows the opposite.
Quite illogical captain.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/26/13 7:41 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Terri Grant @ Travis Johnson |
Apocalyptic Bill |
| dtgrant wrote: | Quote Travis Johnson:
| Quote: | 2. The other issue is more aesthetic. Still, I'm having a hard time getting past the representation that you and your wife/husband agree on everything and that you both as a committee write and vet your thoughts in total unanimity and on the fly.
Anyway, I can't make you treat the second observation differently. But, it feels like a fairly repressive posture for either spouse to only be allowed to share opinions that the other spouse agrees with...or to hold the opinion held by the dominant spouse. |
Who/what do you think you are?
This is all Terri, now talking to you Mr. Travis Johnson. Your comments are so over the top and untrue they make me sick to my core. You are very lucky you tried to pull this “little” mind domination game on me now that I am a truly born again Christian lady. If not, you would have deservingly received some un-ladylike comments, probably getting me barred from this board.
How dare you disparage my marriage. Again I must ask you … who do you think you are…You don’t know my past life and my experience within a verbally abusive ex -marriage with a dominant husband.
I suggest you refrain from nonsensical judgments on my marriage and give a little more attention to reading God’s Word and come to clarity regarding what it is you believe. I don’t know how old you are but I think its time for you to get off milk.
(terri grant) |
I am Donnie and Terri's Pastor, and I can truly say these are two precious people in our church. They study scripture and are trying to see what thus saith the Lord. There are times when we study and discuss topics that there may be different views and opinions. However, when one begins to attack the spirituality of another that crosses the line.
God's grace covers our past, and we must strive to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12). The discussion here is about creation, not salvation or people's past.
_________________
Looking for the Blessed Hope!- Titus 2:13
Bill Coble, D.Min.
Facebook: facebook.com/apocalypticbill
Twitter: @billforjc |
Hey, DOC
Posts: 71
8/26/13 8:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
NBF, let me put it another way. Do you think that God created hundreds of different dog breeds...or perhaps just one, with the others breeding out to what they are today?
Well, there should be MILLIONS of "transitional" dogs, right? But do you ever find a wolf with a chihuahau head? No. Or if we did, we would NOT RECOGNIZE it as such. We would declare it deformed or perhaps a species that has already become extinct.
The point I'm trying to make is that "transitional" is largely a meaningless term. EVERY ONE IS IN TRANSITION.
For instance, humans are taller than they were 400 years ago. No, that is not large-scale evolution...but if you compound that with millions of years of changes, you would logically wind up with something VERY DIFFERENT than what we have today. It may resemble a human...or not.
But at what point would we declare a fossil "transitional"? Again, I ask you to describe a reasonable fossil, that if discovered, would cause you to rethink you stance on evolution. I am thinking that most hardcore creationists (i.e., those who don't believe in any macro-evolution at all) will be unable to even conceive of anything that would convince them.
On the other hand, an evolutionist's stance IS subject to fossil research. That is, if we found certain lifeforms in the same strata as other lifeforms, evolutionists would be FORCED to reconsider some things.
But so far, the strata is clear--there is growing complexity with each new strata. Something that would not have happened had the Flood been the cause of layers, etc. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/26/13 8:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Looks like we disagree.
If the best you got is humans or dogs of different sizes - then you have proved my point.
It's only "meaningless" because it is the glaring omission of eveolution.
Seriously man - just because you see an amoeba in one strata - and a monkey in another - it simply does not - can not - mean one developed from the other.
Again, there should be hundreds of thousands of mutated creatures all trying to develop into sustainable evolutionary paths - unfortunately, the only one we find - are fully developed monkeys, amoebas, dogs, etc...just as we find them today.
Surely in billions (13) of years there must be more - but fossils say no.
DNA says no.
Math says no.
Common sense says no.
Most importantly to you Aaron - NBF says no - and that's all you need.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/26/13 2:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: NBF... |
John Jett |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | NBF, let me put it another way. Do you think that God created hundreds of different dog breeds...or perhaps just one, with the others breeding out to what they are today? |
What they are today can still reproduce with what they were yesterday. You've changed some traits (creating breeds), but nothing about their species has changed, nor will it.
NBF is correct, and your assumption, that if we found a frog with wings, we'd say it was something other is debatable. Show us the frog-with-wings and lets debate that. Oh right, YOU CAN'T. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
8/26/13 2:49 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Misunderstanding the claims of evolution... |
Aaron Scott |
NBF, with respect, the various creatures in the various layers are not, to my mind, conclusive proof of evolution. But they ARE conclusive proof that some creatures preceded others. That alone lets us know that earth is spectacularly older than 6000 years.
If we found humans in the same strata as the earliest lifeforms, we would have very solid evidence (but perhaps not proof) that creation took place in the most literal sense.
The Flood does not explain the layers. There is no sound reason to suppose that the Flood could ensure that ONLY certain lifeforms are found in Layer 1...but NOT in Layer 4. If many things perished at once, then you should see all sorts of fossils in the SAME LAYER.
So, in that sense, the layers work very much against literalism.
The fact that each layer is progressively more complex...well, that may not prove evolution took place (and please note that I am NOT saying that God used ONLY evolution--I do believe He created, too), but it certainly is contrary to creationist arguments.
JOHN JETT...
| Quote: | | What they are today can still reproduce with what they were yesterday. You've changed some traits (creating breeds), but nothing about their species has changed, nor will it |
John, yes, but trace that over the millions of years that evolutionists describe, and you at some point would conclude that it is very likely that at least one branch (of the thousands that would be created) would eventually evolve to where it would NOT be able to mate with dogs.
DNA sequencing gives strong evidence to suggest that some very different animals are related (e.g., hippos and whales). Now, those two don't mate, of course. If they are related, then it follows that at some point there HAD to be a common ancestor, right.
Here is what would prove literalists wrong: If we find two different species that are GENETICALLY descended from some common ancestor. I mean, literalists, if not able to refute this, are left with denying genetic understanding.
I am not trying to be cute or uppity about evolution. I DO believe God is the Creator--and that He DID create some things instantly. But I also must acknowledge that there is not some grande conspiracy against God. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
8/26/13 5:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Misunderstanding the claims of evolution... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: |
I am NOT saying that God used ONLY evolution--I do believe He created, too), but it certainly is contrary to creationist arguments.
|
Sorry man. We completely disagree here. While the layers can be problematic to some interpretations - they simply do not show evolution at all.
If I find a dime in one layer - and a quarter in another - that simply does not show evolution. It shows someone created a dime - and someone created a quarter.
If Evolution could show lots of ten cent pieces - then lots of 10.1 cent pieces and continue(10.2, 10.3, 10.33333, 10.3333333367) so on and so forth - up to a quarter - then you might have a case. But it is a complete leap to see a dime and then a quarter - and say - oh, the dimes became quarters. That is crazy. With the millions and billions of years it would take to develop (if it could be proven that anything ever developed instead of degraded) any new functionality in living creatures - there would be so much in between "junk" it would be undeniable. Alas, there is none.
There is no proof evolution ever occurred - there is no known mechanism for it to occur - only to degenerate - then how in the world would God have used evolution if it simply doesn't exist.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
8/26/13 6:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
