Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Scape211]

Jim - curious to hear your thoughts on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHRYnm_ ... 6ZEi170Zrp

I'm still unsure where I sit with the global/local flood argument as well as to what extent I am behind evolution. The global flood has some hard facts to swallow, but also has some archeological data that I cant really account for or refute well since I'm not very knowledgable on the subject (like those shown in the video). I still tend to lean more towards the local flood, but am not sure.

As for evolution, I do think micro evolution exists, but I'm not sure on macro. I still feel like I hear and have heard conflicting arguments with reasonable logic and data for and against. I also still haven't really found great examples to support macro evolution (even though I believe they could be there). I did watch Dr Stephen Schaffner's video lecture you posted and think its a good start (and hes a great speaker; really good at explaining in laymen's terms), but I think I need to dive deeper.

Thoughts?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. For me, a video like the one you linked me to is an example of science done badly. It is contradicted by science explained on videos such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoieDXPtI60 (the scientific version) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kYv_rbZVVc—the dramatic version. There's a wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_dinosaurs, complete with a fossil record (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_dinosaurs#Fossil_record). There are also brief articles like this regarding macroevolution: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03; https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

Just so you know, I'm not trying to sway you to my position. Very deep and well-meaning Christians, excellent students of the Bible, come to different conclusions. Each person has to study the text on their own and come to the conclusion the material leads them to.

As far as the Flood, scientifically speaking, the Flood has some hard science to swallow. Here are a short list I've assembled:

1. The fossil record, which yields a record of life with a consistent pattern: more and more complex life forms appearing at progressively higher and newer levels. Burials for fish and mammals follow the same pattern of increasing complexity. A global flood theory requires the fossil record to be a somewhat haphazard jumble of odds and ends dumped by the flood, which is not the case.
2. There is no single, consistent, global, sedimentary flood layer.
3. The nature and composition of coal beds are not consistent with young earth and floodwater scenarios.
4. Thick salt bed formed by the slow evaporation of seawater (the Paradox Basin of Utah, where they reach a depositional thickness of 1.5 km with at least 29 separate cycles of salt deposition) is inconsistent with a theory that requires them to have formed in a single year (at a minimum rate of 4 m/day).
5. Typical ocean floors are covered by about 800 m of sediments. Assuming an average deposition rate of 0.01 mm/yr, an 800-meter accumulation would require 80 million years. Young earth creationists would require most of this accumulation to have taken place late in the flood year. The very delicate layering and fine grain size characteristic of these oozes and muds argue strongly against such wholesale dumping rates.
6. The top 2 km of Mt. Ararat’s 5.2 km height is a volcano built over deformed sedimentary rocks. Young creationists’ model requires that the entire volcanic growth took place very late in the flood year. This volcano had to violate all laws of thermal physics in order to cool completely in a few months in time for the ark to land on it.
7. Grand Canyon geology. For the Grand Canyon to have formed in one year would require massive layers of wet sediments to be deposited and hardened at astounding rates over the course of just a few weeks, leaving them solid enough to be incised into mile-high cliff by receding floodwaters. This could be true of limestone, but not of sandstone and shale, which require major loss of water, compaction and/or chemical cement to become a strong rock—all processes that involve significant amounts of time.
8. The examination of silt levels at the Sumerian cities of Ur, Kish, Shuruppak, Lagash and Uruk (all of which have occupation levels at least as early as 2800 BC) are from different periods (some from 4th millennium and some from 3rd) and do not reflect a single massive flood that inundated them all at the same time. Similarly, the city of Jericho, which been continuously occupied since 7000 BC, has no flood deposits whatsoever. Climatological studies have indicated that the period from 4500 to 3500 BC was significantly wetter in this region, but that offers little to go on.
9. Environmental Evidence:

a. According to Genesis, the sea level rose for 150 days until it covered the tops of the mountains, and then subsided for another 150 days. This is physically impossible. The local sea level can rise several feet an hour during a hurricane, but for the sea level to rise to the 17,000’ peak of Ararat it would have to rise to that height around the entire planet. That would require 620 million cubic miles of additional water weighing 3 quintillion tons. All the oceans of the world would have to triple in volume in only 150 days and then quickly shrink back to normal. Where did the water come from, and where did it go?
b. For the water to reach 17,000’ in 150 days, it would have had to rise at the rate of over 100’ per day, almost 5’ per hour. Even if that were possible, it would have created currents that would have made survival in the ark unlikely.
c. It has long been known that rain clouds cannot possibly hold even 1/10th of 1% of the water required for a flood of this magnitude.
d. If the ark ran aground on the still submerged summit of Mt. Ararat on the 17th day of the 7th month, and the tops of the mountains became visible on the first day of the 10th month, was water receded only 15’ in 75 days. Yet it would have to have receded 17,000 in the next 75 days, because by the first day of the first month, the earth was dry.
e. What did the carnivorous animals eat until their prey populations were reestablished?
f. If the dove flew down into a valley to get an olive leaf (only growing in low elevations), how did it manage to fly back up to 17,000’ to the ark? Doves can’t do that.
g. There are a number of animals that have been confined to local areas since before the Pleistocene Ice Age. If these (the kangaroos of Australia being an example) were to be brought to the ark in Mesopotamia and then released after the flood, it does not seem possible that they would or could migrate back to their previous locations without populating other parts of the world.
h. A universal flood would mix all salt and fresh water, killing all freshwater fish and some saltwater fish. Those would not have been on the ark.

10. There would not have been enough room in the ark to accommodate two of all the species then in existence. Fossil evidence around the globe shows that there was an abundant animal population in every continent. Plus, they had one week to get 42,000 on board. Even if God brought them to the ark, that’s a traffic jam that would take more than one week to unsnarl.
11. Assuming 21,000 species of amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammals, we’re assuming at least 42,000 on board. Of the 8 caretakers, each would have to visit 2637 cages a day for feeding and cleaning. If each person worked a 12-hr shift, each cage would get 3 2/3 minutes of care a day.
12. To cover mountains 6 miles high would require 8 times more water than we have on the planet. Where did it come from and where did it go? That much additional water, if created specially for the purpose, would have altered the earth’s weight and disturbed the earth’s orbit around the sun, as well as the moon’s orbit around the earth.
13. Though there are accounts of a great flood around the globe, the differences between them are too extensive to allow confident claims that they must be narrative reflections of the same event. Flood stories are entirely lacking in Africa, occur only occasionally in Europe, and are absent in many parts of Asia. They are widespread in America, Australia, and the islands of the Pacific.
14. The Greenland Ice Shelf Project 2, completed by 2003, used 2-mile-long ice core samples that are chronologically compatible with known times of volcanic eruptions, contain pollen of extinct plants, validate differing oxygen concentrations and weather events. Net result: No global flood in the last 110,000 yrs. (Source of article was Perspective on Science and Christian Faith, Dec 2003 written by Dr Paul Seely, who is a bible historian as well as a scientist.)

People says, "Well, God just did this miraculously." Of course that's possible, but the problem with such a perspective is that this is not the way God does things. When the Bible records miracles, it's making an axehead float, walking on water, healing a blind man, or raising the dead. For there to have been a global flood, God was doing 150 miracles simultaneously to pull it off, and that's just not His style.

Also, it's very clear from the Bible that "all" often doesn't mean "all."

• In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.
• Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.
• During the plagues in Exodus, we read that all the animals were killed by plague (Ex. 9.6). Then in 9.9 we read that all the animals got boils. But I thought they were already all dead? Then in 9.20 they had to bring all the livestock in to save them from hail. Are they all dead or aren't they?
• There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8).

We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global."

The geological data is interpretable in different ways. We have to be careful to do good science, and it can be extremely difficult to figure out who's giving good science and who isn't.

Let's keep talking.

[Scape211]

Great stuff! ill begin diving in and let you know if I have questions.

Some what of a side note, I have also been reading this book: https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Have-Enough ... op?ie=UTF8

Ive been finding it interesting, but not sure how well all its arguments hold up today or how it has evolved when comparing Christianity, science, atheism, and other beliefs (it tends to focus on atheism/agnostic beliefs in comparison the most). Have you ever heard of or read this book? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on it.

[jimwalton]

Sure, let me know what you want to talk more about (Evolution; Flood). There is plenty to discuss.

Regarding the book, I've heard about it but never read it. In my conversations on the Internet, I have also learned that being an atheist takes more faith than being a Christian (since we rely on evidence). I keep trying to have conversations with atheists, asking them to substantiate their positions, and in response I get nothing. Through the years I've had close to no reply from atheists. I don't ask them to prove that God doesn't exist (you can't prove a negative anyway), but I ask them instead to substantiate whatever it is they subscribe to. No answers. They say, "It's not that we have evidence that God doesn't exist, but we find the evidence you present isn't compelling or convincing enough." OK, so I ask them, "So what's the evidence for what you do believe?" I get nothing. Their position is largely one of faith.

[Scape211]

The book is one I have enjoyed, but im starting to see the arguments as being slightly dated (its from 2004). I think alot of the theory and reasoning holds weight, but when they try to stack it up against the atheist argument, they use older arguments for atheism. I'm sure its just based on the arguments they had at the time or through their experiences over the years. I just wasn't sure how relevant it all is. Not that I'm trying to argue specifically with atheists, but like you I'm trying to understand their position on what they believe.

It seems to me most atheists run in the camp of just not believing in anything. Or they often say something like 'I believe in the people and the experiences around me.' Thats not a bad thing as it gets them to think about all they say and do and how it affects the people around them within their timeline here on this earth, but it still doesnt answer the big questions in life. I find Christianity to not only answer those big questions with the most logical and rational thinking (as well as its scientific and historical backing), but also provides a way of living now with others and with God.

[jimwalton]

I agree. To me (and I know this sounds dismissive), the atheists I talk to almost use their atheism to cloak an evasion of the hard questions and really pursuing their position to the edges. I try not to say that caricaturizing their position, but I'm being honest when I say they're quick to dismiss my positions as not being strong enough, but then offer either nothing in exchange or an argument far weaker than what I presented. But they hang with the weaker (or non-existent) position because it fits with their chosen stance.

Oddly enough, they claim to believe in the "experiences around me," but when I use experience to justify various things in the Bible, including miracles, or when I talk about people's experiences in Christ, they say "Experiences don't count." Um...

Some of the atheists I talk to are very content to create their meaning in life (which I think is just fabricating meaning with nothing to support it), while others live in despair that there is no meaning in life (and yet refusing the evidence that Christianity brings to the table). As you can tell, the hundreds of conversations I've had with atheists are ultimately frustrating. They claim that the Bible writers are fabricating the story, but then they fabricate meaning. They claim that the evidences for theism aren't strong enough, and yet they subscribe to weaker evidences. They claim that experiences don't count, but then justify meaning by their own experiences. Go figure. I think they have to live by far more faith than any Christian ever did, but they react strongly to that claim and are horrified by even the thought of it. But that sure is how it seems to me.

Christianity "owns" science, philosophy, cosmology, teleology, and axiology. Christianity has the answers. I have found that atheism only accuses and criticizes (with great hauteur and loud voices, mind you), but has only an empty hand in that clenched fist.