Evolutionary Theory, Creationism, Panspermia, Simulation Hypothesis? What say you? Any

Tobytone

Verified User
I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins. My interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, sometimes bordering on obsession. I believe this is a common experience for many.

Everywhere I turned, evolution seemed to be the prevailing narrative, overshadowing the Biblical accounts that had dominated human history for so long. Many argue that recent scientific advancements have discredited Genesis, elevating evolution to the status of 'fact.' With various dating methods, evidence from dinosaurs, and the fossil record, evolutionists seem to believe that the only debate left is just how misguided believers truly are. They speak as though they've got it all figured out, but they don't. This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory." Regardless of one's beliefs, for many reasons, I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

"We know the Earth is over 4 billion years old," "Dinosaurs were extinct 60-70 million years before humans walked the Earth," "The first frogs appeared 350 million years ago"—these claims are made with such confidence, discussing the six evolutionary changes over 275 million years that have led to the modern frog, which has been hopping around the planet for the last 66 million years. The assumption that we have complete fossil records of all these variations, neatly laid out in strata, is easy to make when the word 'theory' is omitted. Many people think that if something is stated as fact, it must have been thoroughly examined by objective scientists. Most don't want to be thought of as naive or uninformed, so it's safest to agree with the prevailing scientific consensus. However, the dirty little secret is that scientific 'facts' often rely on a small amount of evidence supplemented by numerous computer models and assumptions.

To this day, I ponder our origins with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my view, there seems to be much more evidence supporting the concept of an intelligent designer than the notion that we evolved from a single-celled organism in some primordial soup, perhaps delivered by a comet, into every living thing on Earth through random mutations over billions of years. Frankly, this idea always seemed more far-fetched than even the beliefs of the 'Paleo-SETI' proponents.

I'd love to hear what others believe or don't believe, especially if there is conclusive evidence that truly elevates evolution or any origin theory to factual status. Out of interest, here are a few notable scientists who have believed in creationism and the literal account of our origins in Genesis. Some are still living today, while others date back to the 16th century

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, Newton was deeply religious and spent more time on theological studies than on science. He believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and saw his scientific work as understanding "God's thoughts after Him."

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): A French chemist and microbiologist, Pasteur was known for his work in microbiology, including the disproof of spontaneous generation. He was a strong opponent of evolution and believed in a creator, with his scientific findings supporting the idea that life comes from life.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): An astronomer and mathematician, Kepler was a proponent of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, which guided his research into the laws of planetary motion.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): A pioneer in electricity and magnetism, Faraday was also a devout Christian who saw his scientific discoveries as revealing the orderliness of God's creation.
Henry Morris (1918-2006): Often called the "father of modern creation science," Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood," which significantly influenced the modern creationist movement.
Duane Gish (1921-2013): A biochemist who was a prominent advocate for creation science, he was known for his debates with evolutionists, promoting young Earth creationism
 
I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins. My interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, sometimes bordering on obsession. I believe this is a common experience for many.

Everywhere I turned, evolution seemed to be the prevailing narrative, overshadowing the Biblical accounts that had dominated human history for so long. Many argue that recent scientific advancements have discredited Genesis, elevating evolution to the status of 'fact.' With various dating methods, evidence from dinosaurs, and the fossil record, evolutionists seem to believe that the only debate left is just how misguided believers truly are. They speak as though they've got it all figured out, but they don't. This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory." Regardless of one's beliefs, for many reasons, I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

"We know the Earth is over 4 billion years old," "Dinosaurs were extinct 60-70 million years before humans walked the Earth," "The first frogs appeared 350 million years ago"—these claims are made with such confidence, discussing the six evolutionary changes over 275 million years that have led to the modern frog, which has been hopping around the planet for the last 66 million years. The assumption that we have complete fossil records of all these variations, neatly laid out in strata, is easy to make when the word 'theory' is omitted. Many people think that if something is stated as fact, it must have been thoroughly examined by objective scientists. Most don't want to be thought of as naive or uninformed, so it's safest to agree with the prevailing scientific consensus. However, the dirty little secret is that scientific 'facts' often rely on a small amount of evidence supplemented by numerous computer models and assumptions.

To this day, I ponder our origins with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my view, there seems to be much more evidence supporting the concept of an intelligent designer than the notion that we evolved from a single-celled organism in some primordial soup, perhaps delivered by a comet, into every living thing on Earth through random mutations over billions of years. Frankly, this idea always seemed more far-fetched than even the beliefs of the 'Paleo-SETI' proponents.

I'd love to hear what others believe or don't believe, especially if there is conclusive evidence that truly elevates evolution or any origin theory to factual status. Out of interest, here are a few notable scientists who have believed in creationism and the literal account of our origins in Genesis. Some are still living today, while others date back to the 16th century

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, Newton was deeply religious and spent more time on theological studies than on science. He believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and saw his scientific work as understanding "God's thoughts after Him."

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): A French chemist and microbiologist, Pasteur was known for his work in microbiology, including the disproof of spontaneous generation. He was a strong opponent of evolution and believed in a creator, with his scientific findings supporting the idea that life comes from life.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): An astronomer and mathematician, Kepler was a proponent of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, which guided his research into the laws of planetary motion.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): A pioneer in electricity and magnetism, Faraday was also a devout Christian who saw his scientific discoveries as revealing the orderliness of God's creation.
Henry Morris (1918-2006): Often called the "father of modern creation science," Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood," which significantly influenced the modern creationist movement.
Duane Gish (1921-2013): A biochemist who was a prominent advocate for creation science, he was known for his debates with evolutionists, promoting young Earth creationism

First IMPORTANT thing to remember is: EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution isn't the science that will give info on the origins of life. That's more biochemistry. So let's set that aside for a moment.

What is the "evidence" of evolution? Well, it's actually kind of EVERYWHERE.

It's written in the rocks themselves. We see fossil life change over time (which is effectively what evolution is).

For a nice list of the 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution I highly recommend THIS PAGE

Speaking as someone who has personally spent a lot of time looking at fossils and finding them in the field and who has seen the evidence for evolution I'd say it is very much NOT controversial. It has done an AMAZING job explaining the world we see in front of us.


(One other nitpick: in science the word "theory" means something VERY different from it's common usage. In science it is a HIGHLY EVIDENCED hypothesis. One that has stood the test of multiple attempts to debunk it and come out the other side intact. It is a very high level of surety. Unlike how we COMMONLY use it as a "guess").
 
Let me thank you for a thoughtful response, I really appreciate it. I will address some your points shortly, I have to step away momentarily. I'll appreciate more debate on the things that give me pause in the 'NOT controversial' 'HIGHLY EVIDENCED hypothesis' Sincerely.
 
I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins. My interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, sometimes bordering on obsession. I believe this is a common experience for many.

Everywhere I turned, evolution seemed to be the prevailing narrative, overshadowing the Biblical accounts that had dominated human history for so long. Many argue that recent scientific advancements have discredited Genesis, elevating evolution to the status of 'fact.' With various dating methods, evidence from dinosaurs, and the fossil record, evolutionists seem to believe that the only debate left is just how misguided believers truly are. They speak as though they've got it all figured out, but they don't. This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory." Regardless of one's beliefs, for many reasons, I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

"We know the Earth is over 4 billion years old," "Dinosaurs were extinct 60-70 million years before humans walked the Earth," "The first frogs appeared 350 million years ago"—these claims are made with such confidence, discussing the six evolutionary changes over 275 million years that have led to the modern frog, which has been hopping around the planet for the last 66 million years. The assumption that we have complete fossil records of all these variations, neatly laid out in strata, is easy to make when the word 'theory' is omitted. Many people think that if something is stated as fact, it must have been thoroughly examined by objective scientists. Most don't want to be thought of as naive or uninformed, so it's safest to agree with the prevailing scientific consensus. However, the dirty little secret is that scientific 'facts' often rely on a small amount of evidence supplemented by numerous computer models and assumptions.

To this day, I ponder our origins with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my view, there seems to be much more evidence supporting the concept of an intelligent designer than the notion that we evolved from a single-celled organism in some primordial soup, perhaps delivered by a comet, into every living thing on Earth through random mutations over billions of years. Frankly, this idea always seemed more far-fetched than even the beliefs of the 'Paleo-SETI' proponents.

I'd love to hear what others believe or don't believe, especially if there is conclusive evidence that truly elevates evolution or any origin theory to factual status. Out of interest, here are a few notable scientists who have believed in creationism and the literal account of our origins in Genesis. Some are still living today, while others date back to the 16th century

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, Newton was deeply religious and spent more time on theological studies than on science. He believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and saw his scientific work as understanding "God's thoughts after Him."

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): A French chemist and microbiologist, Pasteur was known for his work in microbiology, including the disproof of spontaneous generation. He was a strong opponent of evolution and believed in a creator, with his scientific findings supporting the idea that life comes from life.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): An astronomer and mathematician, Kepler was a proponent of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, which guided his research into the laws of planetary motion.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): A pioneer in electricity and magnetism, Faraday was also a devout Christian who saw his scientific discoveries as revealing the orderliness of God's creation.
Henry Morris (1918-2006): Often called the "father of modern creation science," Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood," which significantly influenced the modern creationist movement.
Duane Gish (1921-2013): A biochemist who was a prominent advocate for creation science, he was known for his debates with evolutionists, promoting young Earth creationism
the Bible's main message is about morality.

yes it has a paragraph of setup and scant paragraph on creation, but that's not the point of any of it.

who created us or how we got here is not as important as how we treat each other.

:truestory:
 
I did not have a religious upbringing, but like most people, that didn't mean I was any less interested in our origins. My interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, sometimes bordering on obsession. I believe this is a common experience for many.

Everywhere I turned, evolution seemed to be the prevailing narrative, overshadowing the Biblical accounts that had dominated human history for so long. Many argue that recent scientific advancements have discredited Genesis, elevating evolution to the status of 'fact.' With various dating methods, evidence from dinosaurs, and the fossil record, evolutionists seem to believe that the only debate left is just how misguided believers truly are. They speak as though they've got it all figured out, but they don't. This leads me to one of my pet peeves: about 30 years ago, every documentary or Hollywood scientist seemed to drop the word "theory." Regardless of one's beliefs, for many reasons, I think all belief systems are still very much 100% theoretical.

"We know the Earth is over 4 billion years old," "Dinosaurs were extinct 60-70 million years before humans walked the Earth," "The first frogs appeared 350 million years ago"—these claims are made with such confidence, discussing the six evolutionary changes over 275 million years that have led to the modern frog, which has been hopping around the planet for the last 66 million years. The assumption that we have complete fossil records of all these variations, neatly laid out in strata, is easy to make when the word 'theory' is omitted. Many people think that if something is stated as fact, it must have been thoroughly examined by objective scientists. Most don't want to be thought of as naive or uninformed, so it's safest to agree with the prevailing scientific consensus. However, the dirty little secret is that scientific 'facts' often rely on a small amount of evidence supplemented by numerous computer models and assumptions.

To this day, I ponder our origins with a healthy dose of skepticism. In my view, there seems to be much more evidence supporting the concept of an intelligent designer than the notion that we evolved from a single-celled organism in some primordial soup, perhaps delivered by a comet, into every living thing on Earth through random mutations over billions of years. Frankly, this idea always seemed more far-fetched than even the beliefs of the 'Paleo-SETI' proponents.

I'd love to hear what others believe or don't believe, especially if there is conclusive evidence that truly elevates evolution or any origin theory to factual status. Out of interest, here are a few notable scientists who have believed in creationism and the literal account of our origins in Genesis. Some are still living today, while others date back to the 16th century

Isaac Newton (1643-1727): Often considered one of the greatest scientists of all time, Newton was deeply religious and spent more time on theological studies than on science. He believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible and saw his scientific work as understanding "God's thoughts after Him."

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): A French chemist and microbiologist, Pasteur was known for his work in microbiology, including the disproof of spontaneous generation. He was a strong opponent of evolution and believed in a creator, with his scientific findings supporting the idea that life comes from life.
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): An astronomer and mathematician, Kepler was a proponent of the idea that the universe was designed by an intelligent Creator, which guided his research into the laws of planetary motion.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867): A pioneer in electricity and magnetism, Faraday was also a devout Christian who saw his scientific discoveries as revealing the orderliness of God's creation.
Henry Morris (1918-2006): Often called the "father of modern creation science," Morris co-authored "The Genesis Flood," which significantly influenced the modern creationist movement.
Duane Gish (1921-2013): A biochemist who was a prominent advocate for creation science, he was known for his debates with evolutionists, promoting young Earth creationism
Genesis is Hebrew poetry. Poetry is not, and never has been intended to be pure history, pure biography, pure science. Poetry is metaphor, allegory, symbolism.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the ultimate origin of life.

Everyone with a good high school education should be aware that scientific theories are provisional knowledge, possibly subject to revision and tweaking, and supported overall by repeated verification in laboratory experimentation, genetics, and field observations.
 
First IMPORTANT thing to remember is: EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
No one said it did.
Evolution isn't the science that will give info on the origins of life. That's more biochemistry. So let's set that aside for a moment.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
What is the "evidence" of evolution? Well, it's actually kind of EVERYWHERE.
Every religion has supporting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence.
It's written in the rocks themselves. We see fossil life change over time (which is effectively what evolution is).
Fossils aren't alive. They cannot mutate.
For a nice list of the 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution I highly recommend THIS PAGE

Speaking as someone who has personally spent a lot of time looking at fossils and finding them in the field and who has seen the evidence for evolution I'd say it is very much NOT controversial. It has done an AMAZING job explaining the world we see in front of us.
The purpose of any religion.
(One other nitpick: in science the word "theory" means something VERY different from it's common usage.
Science does not redefine any word.
In science it is a HIGHLY EVIDENCED hypothesis.
Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. A theory is not a hypothesis.
 
No one said it did.

The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.

Every religion has supporting evidence. Science does not use supporting evidence.

Fossils aren't alive. They cannot mutate.

The purpose of any religion.

Science does not redefine any word.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that. A theory is not a hypothesis.

Oh god, I'm not sure I'm ready for your usual shit. Could we do a raincheck on it this time through? I mean it's so painful to see your stupidity so proudly presented.
 
Genesis is Hebrew poetry. Poetry is not, and never has been intended to be pure history, pure biography, pure science. Poetry is metaphor, allegory, symbolism.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the ultimate origin of life.
No one said it did.
Everyone with a good high school education should be aware that scientific theories are provisional knowledge, possibly subject to revision and tweaking, and supported overall by repeated verification in laboratory experimentation, genetics, and field observations.
No theory of science is ever 'verified' or proven True. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do that.
The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science.
 
First IMPORTANT thing to remember is: EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution isn't the science that will give info on the origins of life. That's more biochemistry. So let's set that aside for a moment.

What is the "evidence" of evolution? Well, it's actually kind of EVERYWHERE.

It's written in the rocks themselves. We see fossil life change over time (which is effectively what evolution is).

For a nice list of the 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution I highly recommend THIS PAGE

Speaking as someone who has personally spent a lot of time looking at fossils and finding them in the field and who has seen the evidence for evolution I'd say it is very much NOT controversial. It has done an AMAZING job explaining the world we see in front of us.


(One other nitpick: in science the word "theory" means something VERY different from it's common usage. In science it is a HIGHLY EVIDENCED hypothesis. One that has stood the test of multiple attempts to debunk it and come out the other side intact. It is a very high level of surety. Unlike how we COMMONLY use it as a "guess").

:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:

Thanks esp. for your explanation of what a scientific theory is as opposed to common usage. I imagine that most flat Earthers accept germ theory, the theory of relativity, and the theory of gravity as realities not open to religious interpretation.
 
Since there seems to be a lot of confusion, it's time to once again clarify a few points:

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. It uses no supporting evidence. It only uses conflicting evidence. Once a theory is developed, it remains a theory until it is falsified. No theory of science is ever proven True.

Examples of theories of science typically discarded by the left:

The 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) where 't' is time, and 'E' is energy.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 't' is time, and 'e' is entropy (available energy for work).
The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is light radiated in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is emissivity, or how well the surface absorbs or emits light (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

A religion can be best described by it's common features:
* All religions are based on some initial circular argument. A circular argument by itself is NOT a fallacy. It's other name is the Argument of Faith. In other words, all religions are based on faith.
* All religions have arguments that stem from this initial circular argument.

A circular argument fallacy forms when one tries to prove a circular argument True or False, which is not possible. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Theory of Evolution, which states that current life originated from more 'primitive' life via mutation is NOT a theory of science. It is a religion. ALL arguments extending from this initial circular argument make it a religion. People that try to prove this religion True are fundamentalists.

There are many such religions claiming to be 'science':

The Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Abiogenesis (that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events).
The Theory of Creation (that life came to Earth through the action of some kind of intelligence).
The Theory of the Big Bang (that the Universe had a beginning, usually described as some infinitely small energic point).
The Theory of the Continuum (that the Universe has always existed, and always will).
The Theory of Global Warming (that Earth is somehow warming due to the presence of a Magickal Holy Gas.
The Theory of the Ozone Hole (that the ozone layers of Earth are being destroyed by a Magickal Holy Gas.

ALL of these are religions, indeed, some of these are fundamentalist style religions.

Popular religions of the left:
The Church of Green.
The Church of the Ozone Hole.
The Church of Global Warming.
The Church of the EV.
The Church of Covid.
The Church of Hate.
The Church of No God.
The Church of Karl Marx.

ALL of these are fundamentalist style religions.

Science itself is just a set of falsifiable theories. It has no theories about past unobserved events because they can't be tested. Most of these theories (particularly in physics) have been transcribed into mathematics, giving them power of prediction. Some are transcribed into logic, which also gives them power of prediction.

Religion does not use mathematics or logic. It simply predicts based on a circular argument.

Therefore, the Theory of Evolution, is nothing more than a fundamentalist style religion. It's believers often try to masquerade it as 'science'.
 
:hand: :hand: :hand: :hand: :hand:

Thanks esp. for your explanation of what a scientific theory is as opposed to common usage. I imagine that most flat Earthers accept germ theory, the theory of relativity, and the theory of gravity as realities not open to religious interpretation.
The Earth is not flat. Even the ancient Greeks knew that! Science does not redefine any word.
 
Genesis is Hebrew poetry. Poetry is not, and never has been intended to be pure history, pure biography, pure science. Poetry is metaphor, allegory, symbolism.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the ultimate origin of life.

Everyone with a good high school education should be aware that scientific theories are provisional knowledge, possibly subject to revision and tweaking, and supported overall by repeated verification in laboratory experimentation, genetics, and field observations.

The religionists have obviously had far too much influence on public school education if the OP really doubts that evolution is real, proven science. I did an assignment in 5th grade, on the evolution of the modern horse. I used the Encyclopedia Britannica that we had at home, and library books. Got an A on it. That was 61 years ago. There were no fundies showing up in protest at our elementary school demanding their version, nor did the teacher get censured for assigning the project.

Ah, the good old days.
 
First IMPORTANT thing to remember is: EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution isn't the science that will give info on the origins of life. That's more biochemistry. So let's set that aside for a moment.

What is the "evidence" of evolution? Well, it's actually kind of EVERYWHERE.

It's written in the rocks themselves. We see fossil life change over time (which is effectively what evolution is).

For a nice list of the 29+ Evidences of Macroevolution I highly recommend THIS PAGE

Speaking as someone who has personally spent a lot of time looking at fossils and finding them in the field and who has seen the evidence for evolution I'd say it is very much NOT controversial. It has done an AMAZING job explaining the world we see in front of us.


(One other nitpick: in science the word "theory" means something VERY different from it's common usage. In science it is a HIGHLY EVIDENCED hypothesis. One that has stood the test of multiple attempts to debunk it and come out the other side intact. It is a very high level of surety. Unlike how we COMMONLY use it as a "guess").

There are numerous issues with the prevailing wisdom of the day that seem to be merely inconvenient snags to the 'overwhelming evidence,' making them easy to overlook. However, I see many of these issues as death blows to the entire 'religion of evolution'. So, I must start somewhere—why not with the first one that gave me pause. It’s going to take considerable detail to articulate my opening salvo. Ideally, we can close this one out before moving on.

When examining the Grand Canyon, we see what evolutionists call proof of the passage of billions of years, along with thousands of fossils in nearly every layer of strata. The ‘prevailing theory’ suggests we’re observing nearly 2 billion years of sedimentary buildup at an average rate of 0.1 mm per year. In my view, things get crazy when confronted with the following observation that many highly qualified geologists point out. It also makes sense to many laymen who consider the alternative view.

All except the very bottom of the canyon consist of sedimentary layers (primarily sandstone) that are nearly perfectly flat for miles, extending well beyond the canyon’s borders. Many of the thousands of fossils in these layers exhibit exquisite detail. Thousands of sea like creatures, alligators, and dinosaurs are so detailed they look as if they could come to life and walk or swim out of the rocks.

It seems impossible for these layers to form slowly over billions of years, somehow trapping living creatures that either forgot to decay or were overlooked by hungry hunters. For starters, these layers should show evidence of erosion from wind, rain, or from river beds cutting through existing layers and depositing fossils. This would be evident through very uneven layering, complete with riverbeds and significant variation in surface materials. At the very least, we would expect to see evidence of sand dunes or small cliff faces, resembling even the most boring of landscapes. And I’ve yet to hear compelling explanations for the detailed preservation of animals that decay rapidly. The slow buildup over billions of years simply isn't believable.

This leads me to what you might have already guessed: the hypothesis that a global flood could have caused what we see at the canyon and, frankly, all over the world. Such an event would explain how the layers were created rapidly enough to trap those animals and preserve them for ages. It also explains the presence of sea-like creatures and the of water needed to create sandstone in flat layers.

Some scientists claim these layers result from seas slowly rising and receding over billions of years, easily reaching the canyon’s location, but they offer no convincing explanation of how dinosaurs and other land animals ended up fossilized in these slowly encroaching seas. Rapid sedimentary layering and the quick deaths of so many different creatures are much easier to reconcile when considering the presupposition of a worldwide flood of epic proportions, killing all life in a very short time, then slowly receding over 370 days. These layers would form exactly as they are seen in the canyon and in many places around the globe.

Are you aware of better theories for the Grand Canyon’s formation, or do you see validity in my skepticism? It would make it easier for me to accept the billions of years narrative. Also, I'd prefer not to vere off on any other points of biblical claims for now and focus here as my assertions are not meant to defend specific biblical claims other than the actual possibility of a global flood for whatever reason. Sorry for the lengthy response but I wanted to attempt making my skepticisms as clear as possible.

grand canyon.jpeg
 
Genesis is Hebrew poetry. Poetry is not, and never has been intended to be pure history, pure biography, pure science. Poetry is metaphor, allegory, symbolism.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the ultimate origin of life.

Everyone with a good high school education should be aware that scientific theories are provisional knowledge, possibly subject to revision and tweaking, and supported overall by repeated verification in laboratory experimentation, genetics, and field observations.
Ok, Ok, no mention of the ultimate origin, technically correct but has little to do with my point. So let's everybody move to the moment after whatever the origin is. Your statement is pointing out the obvious of which I have no problem with. I do have problems with nagging little details that seem to fly in the face of the theory. And, I did go the high school and maybe even a bit more. lol A sincere thanks for replying and not slinging cheap insults.
 
Back
Top