Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[VoodooAce]

Yup, Sumociv, I'd be the second person, right after EnemyAce, to gladly admit to you that science does not have anything close to all the answers. Every serious scientist in the world would tell you that.

You call on people of science to admit that they don't know how the world began. I think most serious scientists would readily admit to that. We don't know for sure. For scientists, proof is a huge factor....that's why it's called the Big Bang Theory, or the Theory of Evolution. They take nothing at all on faith.

That is the difference between the two groups. Scientists say, "I don't know" much easier than the backers of creationism.

"Perhaps one of you atheists out there can tell me whether you are content with the idea of evolution being a result of purely natural processes. If so, I have several questions for you:

How could a code as complicated and intricate as the genome write itself and end up with almost an endless variety of highly specialized life? Wouldn't you expect evolution to be content with a much simpler sytem? What drove nature to walk down such a long and windy road?

If evolution is true, doesn't it have huge implications for how human societies should live? Doesn't it mean that morality is an illusion and shouldn't the strongest crush the weakest without any reticience? And shouldn't we all cheer them on since they are acting in our genetic self interest?

Doesn't it open up the possibility that some people/races/genetic recipients are superior to others?

Why should we hesitate to aid natural selection by modifying genes and purging our ranks of gentically handicapped individuals?"

I'm more an agnostic than an atheist, I think, but I'lll give you my opinions. When you ask about the developement of the genome and why nature took such a road, long and windy as it is. I think THAT IS the nature of evolution. We stand at the end of the road, looking toward the beginning, and ask "How did we reach this point? Isn't the system too perfect for it to be a coincidence that we end up like this?" We ask that now, thinking it would be strange if things were different. BUT, a very minor change early on that road, and things are so completely different now that our current address on that road would be unfathomably strange.

As far as evolution, and its implications, I think evolving humans will, in order to survive as our world basically shrinks, will have to become more tolerant. To not go kill ourselves off and go extinct, we probably need to use our awareness and intelligence to reject the 'survival of the fittest' instincts of our past. That will be part of our evolution, I hope.

Of course, we could NOT reject our insincts, live by the creed of survival of the fittest, and still NOT wipe ourselves out, I guess. I don't know. LOL, this is a hell of a can of worms, Sumociv.

 

[Sixchan]

I am agnostic, but I could answer your questions if you like.

How could a code as complicated and intricate as the genome write itself and end up with almost an endless variety of highly specialized life? Wouldn't you expect evolution to be content with a much simpler sytem? What drove nature to walk down such a long and windy road?

I think VoodooAce explained this better than I could.

If evolution is true, doesn't it have huge implications for how human societies should live? Doesn't it mean that morality is an illusion and shouldn't the strongest crush the weakest without any reticience? And shouldn't we all cheer them on since they are acting in our genetic self interest?

Why do many people assume Atheists/Evolutionists are people who act in their self-interests? Most Christians help people and do good in the name of God, right? Well, most Atheists help people and do good in the name of Humanity. Morality idoes not have to be divinely inspired, it can come from goodwill, maturity and common sense too.

Doesn't it open up the possibility that some people/races/genetic recipients are superior to others?

This is true. But a smart person is more superior mentally, just as a strong person is more superior physically. Evolution adapts you to your living conditions. When it comes to desert climates, a camel is superior to a polar bear, just as a polar bear is superior on the glaciers. Some people are superior, but only under certain conditions.

Why should we hesitate to aid natural selection by modifying genes and purging our ranks of gentically handicapped individuals?

Define 'genetically handicapped'. If you mean modifying the genes of a child who would otherwise be brain damaged so s/he could live a perfectly normal life, or modifying the genes of a family at their request so they will have a higher resistance to cancer, then yes.

If you mean a genocide of those who do not fit a genetic profile, then no.

 

[sumociv]

I am responding to some of the general statements above and didn't mean to single you out. I think you have a balanced view that I respect.


Voodooace:
"I'm more an agnostic than an atheist, I think, but I'lll give you my opinions. When you ask about the developement of the genome and why nature took such a road, long and windy as it is. I think THAT IS the nature of evolution. We stand at the end of the road, looking toward the beginning, and ask "How did we reach this point? Isn't the system too perfect for it to be a coincidence that we end up like this?" We ask that now, thinking it would be strange if things were different. BUT, a very minor change early on that road, and things are so completely different now that our current address on that road would be unfathomably strange. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good answer. If evolution is true, then asking this question is sort of like the person in a portrait asking why he looks the way he does. But believing that evolution is a ramdomly occuring process would be like the portrayed person believing that he is the result of random splashes of paint. Maybe he is, but it seems to me that it would take a lot of nihilism on his part to come up with that bizarre idea of his origins.

SIxchan: re: the origins of morality in an atheists world.
"Why do many people assume Atheists/Evolutionists are people who act in their self-interests? Most Christians help people and do good in the name of God, right? Well, most Atheists help people and do good in the name of Humanity. Morality idoes not have to be divinely inspired, it can come from goodwill, maturity and common sense too."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me this seems like its an example of hypocracy to me. In that an atheist has to conclude that morality is merely relative to the societal needs of the time. i.e. what is best for the society should be defined as moral. However, this is all really just a device of convenience, the atheist must admit to himself that there is no ontological moral code and the one that exists is a descendent from religion. ]
One one hand they have an intellectual need to disprove religion but on the other hand they don't live what they believe. If someone hits an atheist, the atheist sues. But if evolution is reality then shoudln't he just accept that this is a consequence of being part of the food chain and do likewise?

 

[Jimcat]

As someone who grew up in a Catholic community, I've always been puzzled by those who couldn't admit the possibility that both evolution and creation might have been the forces that created life. The Bible says that God created Man in His image, but there's no reason to believe that evolution couldn't have been the tool that God used. If you believe in both God and science, it's a lot easier to believe that God was the guiding hand behind the evolution of human consciousness and the "soul".

Likewise, if you go back to the science of Creation itself, the origin of the Universe can be traced back to a primal event (the Big Bang). Something had to start that event initially, and if you want to call it an act of God, there's nothing in science to preclude that being true.

That being said, my own beliefs don't include a "God" in the sense of the traditional Judeo/Christian/Islamic deity. But I don't think that belief in divine creation would have to rule out established scientific knowledge, or vice versa.

 

[Knowltok]

be like the portrayed person believing that he is the result of random splashes of paint. Maybe he is, but it seems to me that it would take a lot of nihilism on his part to come up with that bizarre idea of his origins.

The only problem with this analogy is that the person in your example is comparing himself to a picture and saying it is not design, but random splashes. For evolution there is no picture. We are not comparing the present as the result of an attempt to copy something else.

To me this seems like its an example of hypocracy to me. In that an atheist has to conclude that morality is merely relative to the societal needs of the time. i.e. what is best for the society should be defined as moral. However, this is all really just a device of convenience, the atheist must admit to himself that there is no ontological moral code and the one that exists is a descendent from religion. ]

And wouldn't the aitheist conclude that the religious moral code is based on nothing more than someone's attempts to construct a set of rules to deal with those societal needs of the time? Just because good ideas and "truths" have found their way into religion does not validate all of the precepts. Thou shalt not steal is a good idea for society regardless of its source and does not prove (not that you are claiming this) the existence of a God.

If someone hits an atheist, the atheist sues. But if evolution is reality then shoudln't he just accept that this is a consequence of being part of the food chain and do likewise?

He need not accept this at all. Sueing is simple a complex method of responding with the weapons and abilities nature has provided him. An advanced legal code is not the conventional tooth, hoof, or horn, but it is something that man has developed from his intelligence. That intelligence is his survival characteristic and using it or its products is no more against evolution than a dog using its teeth.

 

[sumociv]

Originally posted by Knowltok


The only problem with this analogy is that the person in your example is comparing himself to a picture and saying it is not design, but random splashes. For evolution there is no picture. We are not comparing the present as the result of an attempt to copy something else.

Good point.......But if the portrait concluded that he was a result of the process of painting, wouldn't it be more natural to conclude that there was a painter?

What could cause him to conclude that he was the result of chance splashes of paint? And exactly why would he find this to be more compelling explanation for his existence?

Perhaps a modern art picture (like those resulting from some whacked out artist throwing paint at a canvas) would propose the opposite. She would naturally conclude that she had to be an accident or a result of some abominable natural process.

To accept evolution from chance, you have to somehow see yourself as just random splashes of matter.

Thus: Doesn't the intricacies of the results of the evolutionary process prove God as its author exists?

This seems to me to be a self-answering question as random splashes of matter shouldn't be able to ponder whence they came......

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sumociv


SIxchan: re: the origins of morality in an atheists world.
"Why do many people assume Atheists/Evolutionists are people who act in their self-interests? Most Christians help people and do good in the name of God, right? Well, most Atheists help people and do good in the name of Humanity. Morality idoes not have to be divinely inspired, it can come from goodwill, maturity and common sense too."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To me this seems like its an example of hypocracy to me. In that an atheist has to conclude that morality is merely relative to the societal needs of the time. i.e. what is best for the society should be defined as moral. However, this is all really just a device of convenience, the atheist must admit to himself that there is no ontological moral code and the one that exists is a descendent from religion. ]
One one hand they have an intellectual need to disprove religion but on the other hand they don't live what they believe. If someone hits an atheist, the atheist sues. But if evolution is reality then shoudln't he just accept that this is a consequence of being part of the food chain and do likewise?

I think that Sixchan's comments hit it on the head. Morality needn't be divinely inspired. While there is, of course, plenty of grey area, here, but there is also a lot of black and white. There is right and there is wrong, and none of us should need anybody to tell us the difference between the two.

To kill is just wrong. I don't feel that way because it's one of the commandments, or because Yaweh or Allah told be so. Or because I read it somewhere. It is wrong to take something that belongs to somebody else. There were just obvious bits of human morality that HAD to find its way into the Bible....just as they found itheir way into pretty much every religion.

In other words, they were wrong long before there was ANY religion.

And, BTW, I don't feel any need at all to disprove religion. You can't do it, anyway. I love to argue the ongoing debate, however, and always have.

I almost envy those with such faith, actually. I say worship all you want, worship whomever or whatever you want. It's all good to go as far as I'm concerned.

Just keep where it belongs, at home or at church, and keep it out of my son's school, and out of my city council meetings and out of my government as a whole.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by sumociv


Good point.......But if the portrait concluded that he was a result of the process of painting, wouldn't it be more natural to conclude that there was a painter?

What could cause him to conclude that he was the result of chance splashes of paint? And exactly why would he find this to be more compelling explanation for his existence?

Perhaps a modern art picture (like those resulting from some whacked out artist throwing paint at a canvas) would propose the opposite. She would naturally conclude that she had to be an accident or a result of some abominable natural process.

To accept evolution from chance, you have to somehow see yourself as just random splashes of matter.

Thus: Doesn't the intricacies of the results of the evolutionary process prove God as its author exists?

This seems to me to be a self-answering question as random splashes of matter shouldn't be able to ponder whence they came......

Ah! But the individual in the portrait would not be a result of painting necessarily. He is a result of paint coming into contact with the canvass. Chances are good, if we're talking all relative here, that science would be able to tell with some degree of accuracy from whence the paint came, why the paint comes in numerous different collors, why the colors appear different to us, how long it took the paint to dry, etc.....

They could probably tell what the painting looked like before any color was added and it was just a sketch, or an outline....

Of course, you could ask, but where did the paint and canvass come fromin the first place.....well, I don't know. I still would put money that divinity had nothing to do with it.

As far as the Big Bang goes...well, my own theory(and this has apparently been shown as being unlikely....scientists think they're finding that the evidence points to a continuosly expanding Universe that will eventually become black, cold and dead) is that the Universe has, and always will be. We have a Big Bang, the Universe expands until the outward energy from the original explosion becomes too little to counteract the gravity caused by all of the matter in the Universe, at which time the it will collapse on itself untill all matter is contained within the space of a pinhead, where the heat and energy become so that it explodes, beginning the process all over again. Scientists now, though, are saying that it doesn't seem as though there is enough matter in the Universe to cause the expansion to stop...nothing holding it back. But then, this would probably belong in anoterh post, which nobody would reply to and find interesting, and I'm rambling.

OUT!

 

[Knowltok]

Originally posted by sumociv


Good point.......But if the portrait concluded that he was a result of the process of painting, wouldn't it be more natural to conclude that there was a painter?

What could cause him to conclude that he was the result of chance splashes of paint? And exactly why would he find this to be more compelling explanation for his existence?

Perhaps a modern art picture (like those resulting from some whacked out artist throwing paint at a canvas) would propose the opposite. She would naturally conclude that she had to be an accident or a result of some abominable natural process.

To accept evolution from chance, you have to somehow see yourself as just random splashes of matter.

Thus: Doesn't the intricacies of the results of the evolutionary process prove God as its author exists?

This seems to me to be a self-answering question as random splashes of matter shouldn't be able to ponder whence they came......

But you are also assuming that it is actually a portrait that we are dealing with. VoodooAce points out that it is paint on canvas, not by any requirement a picture of anything. To me it can come down to the monkeys typing out Shakespeare. Given enough monkeys, typewriters, and time, random chance can produce the exact works. In a universe of size incomprehensible, there has been enough of each of these elements to produce life, even intellegent life on thousands of worlds. We happen to be one of them.

 

[Padma]

originally posted by sumociv
Doesn't the intricacies of the results of the evolutionary process prove God as its author exists?

Alas, sumociv, you fell into the trap you yourself set earlier: you cannot prove that which requires faith. Many here might be quite willing to consider themselves as 'random splashes of paint'.

FWIW, I generally agree with your position. Science seems on the verge of 'proving' the ToE. but that doesn't mean a person of faith should start disbelieving in God.

 

[sumociv]

Originally posted by Padma


Alas, sumociv, you fell into the trap you yourself set earlier: you cannot prove that which requires faith. Many here might be quite willing to consider themselves as 'random splashes of paint'.

You caught me..... I should have said "Doesn't the intricacies of the results of the evolutionary process compel you to see a god as its author?"

I think that my analogy of paint on a canvas is a good one. Perhaps I am subscribing too mush importance to my own self and my religion is a result of my instinctual desire to see patterns in nature.

On the other hand perhaps those who see themselves as splashes of paint can't overcome the consequences of acknowledging oneself as a work of an artist.......

Who's to say which one is right, since both are unavoidably the result of assumptions we make which we find hard to explain.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce

Originally posted by FL2
You lie sir. The earth can be shown not to be the center of the universe, with math to back it up. It is a fact. As to what assurances you may give about my conduct five centuries ago, that is amusing, because I cannot say with certainty myself what I might have done if I were born then.

I have seen no evidence to support that idea. My answer is no.

Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable?

Ok....a couple things here. I don't lie. Are you telling me, FL2, that in 1400 B.C.E., you would have argued that the earth is NOT in the center of the Universe??? You'd be a dead man. Of course you would have.

The Bible makes no claims about the Earth's position in the universe, therefore, I would have shrugged, said 'Whatever, that's nice.' and continued on with my life.

Originally posted by VoodooAce Because the earth can be shown NOW to not be the center, but religion fought that theory tooth and nail. Copernicus wouldn't even make his theory public for fear of the Church. Gallileo backed him, when it was made public, and he suffered for it. You are being ridiculous, FL2. Religion has always fought science, until the proof becomes absolutely iffrefutable. Until it is obvious that they look like idiots for doubting science.

Actually, the people who were persecuting men of science back then were following their own dogma, not the Bible. Big difference. HUGE difference. And in case you doubt that, remember that for every pre-Renaissance man that didn't live to start the Renaissance, a hundred people were burnt to death with their Bibles chained to them, for the ghastly crime of reading the Bible, and discovering that the Church's dogma was in contradiction to the word of God.

Originally posted by VoodooAce Or, are you trying to tell us that you would have stood up to the Church, that you would have known better? Odds are that that's a bunch of crap.

No, I would have been burnt at the stake, with a Bible chained to me.

Originally posted by VoodooAce Same thing with the extinction thing. Of course, you say, you belive in it. All you have to do is read the paper. MY POINT, again, is that that's what the religious always say. 150 years ago, the thought that species went extinct was the same as saying that you adhere to the ToE. People of religion denied that new species were ever created, and that any species ever ceased to exist.....because God already had made everytthing perfect, and no change was necessary.

Again, you speak of DOGMA, not Christianity.

Originally posted by VoodooAce
"Ah, I see. So the only reason whatsoever to worship a god or gods is to explain the inexplicable?

Not the only reason. No. I'll try to be alittle more clear for you.

That is how religion begins...."What the hell was that big, streaking flash of light?" "It must be the Gods. Maybe they are angry with us." Do you not see this as being a likely conversation 15,000 years ago? It's all just evolved from that point....and at some point about 7 or 8,000 years ago, somebody had the idea that maybe it's not many gods, but one all powerfull, omnipotent God. Thus we get Judaism, which EVOLVED into Christianity, which is, itself evolving.

Dogma evolves. The Word remains the same.

Originally posted by VoodooAce And as for Christianity, while they may ADMIT to what science has proven in the fields you mention, it wasn't until science came up with the answers that they would do so and stopped giving the credit directly to God. I can't believe you bring up 'The orbital dance' when to have adhered to such a theory in 1400 would have had you BURNING AT THE STAKE.

The very fact that people WERE burnt at the stake for adhering to that theory is all the rebuttal I need. Once again, DOGMA is not Christianity, and to confuse the two is the same as saying that all black men are niggers, or all Jews are greedy, or that all white men from the SouthEastern US are rednecks.

Originally posted by VoodooAce I get the feeling that in your eyes, science has never proven religion wrong. Because admitting that would also FORCE you to admit that it could happen again. Say, with ToE, maybe??

Science has proven RELIGION wrong lots of times. Not once has it proven Christianity wrong.
You are lumping Christianity in with the Dogma of those who falsely claim to practice it. The Bible has never made a statement concerning science that has been proven incorrect, or cannot be observed to be true. The sphere of the earth does hang upon nothing. The waters of the earth are returned to the mountains. Animals do reproduce after their own kind.
The Bible has never mentioned the location of the earth relative to the rest of the universe. Therefore it cannot be wrong on the subject. If it makes no claim, then by default, it cannot have made a false claim.

This is really basic stuff.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Knowltok
Perhaps it is buried somewhere in the hundreds of posts above, (I've read them, but only as they came out, and I'm not doing it again) but can someone on the creationist side (FL2) clarify something for me:

I believe it was stated that species only go extinct, that they do not evolve, and that every species was around at creation. First, if I am wrong on that, correct me.

I posted that. I pointed out that Natural Selection causes extinction, not speciation. But see below as to the timing of speciaes. And do note that the Bible makes some very specific statements about when each type of life form was placed upon the earth or in its oceans or skies. Statements that the ToE has done nothing to contradict, I might add.

Originally posted by Knowltok
If not, what is the explanation for there not being modern animal fossils deep in the rock strata, where there are other, extinct animals?

Well, first off, you have to remember that I am an Old-Earth creationist. I therefore have a very unorthodox view on this subject, and most Creationsists, especially Young-Earthers (twits), will consider me a heretic, fit only for kindling.

It is my opinion that God's terraforming project took billions of years because once He created the universe, He didn't particularly want to operate outside it's laws unless absolutely neccessary. He started with simple lifeforms in the sea, to create an 'infrastructure', if you will, for the rest of the life forms He had in mind. Sure, He could have just snapped his fingers and had the whole thing ready-made, but He apparently chose not to. Why? <shrug> Don't ask me, ask Him.

So those prokyarotes, plankton, algae, etc, altered the atmosphere, filled the ocean with food, and phase 1 was complete. Arthropods, worms, and fish were added to the sea, and on land, plants were seeded, simple ones at first, to prepare the soil for the things to come, and to provide a large food supply for the first land animals.

Then the dinosaurs came. And they got too big and fat, and died, and turned into oil, and then the Arabs came, and started buying everything in sight. And then Prince Charles started wearing Lady Di's clothes. He took out her best Sunday dress, and he put it on and went to town.

(The above paragraph is reproduced without permission from the script of Airplane, with my gratitude to the fine fine writers of that movie.)

You get the idea, I am sure. Needless to say, it is not a popular idea. But it is supported by the Bible, and doesn't contradict anything that science has come up with. Real science got the order right, just ignored the real mechanism. It wasn't logos machina, it was deus machina.

As far as the lack of modern fossils goes, you'll have to remember that most of their bodies were washed into the sea during the Flood, and that the top layers of the strata probably went with them, taking their fossilised brethren to the bottom of the sea as well.


EDIT: Spelling, and small corrections.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Oh, and FL2, I forgot to mention that, yes, there is a lot of evidence now that there are other planets out there. Once again, the magic of math helped out. People were able to predict that, since we couldn't actually SEE a planet, because of the brightness of a given planet's sun. So mathematicians said, "Well, we may not be able to SEE it, but we can see the EFFECT it has on its sun." Lo and behold, they were absolutely correct. Using the math and science of men like Kepler, we were able to PROVE that there are other planets.

I can see that this would bother the religious myopics greatly....as much or more than ToE. Because, it seems obvious to me, out of all the stars out there, which are actually just suns like ours, it is ridiculous to think that our sun, which has nine planets, is the only one out of billions to have formed planets.

And out of the millions and millions of planets out there, it is grossly myopic and self-centered of us to think that ours is the only one to have formed life.

I never once claimed that there were no other planets around other suns. To even imply otherwise is naught but slander.

Since I flatly reject ToE on Earth due to total lack of evidence, why would I expect it to work on another planet? There is no good reason to even believe that algae exist on another planet, let alone a space-faring civilization.

The Bible, my usual source, offers no information on the subject. Therefore, I'm not going to needlessly multiply entities. There are no reliable scientific or theological sources indicating the presence of life on other worlds, so why believe it?

 

[knowltok3]

As far as the lack of modern fossils goes, you'll have to remember that most of their bodies were washed into the sea during the Flood, and that the top layers of the strata probably went with them, taking their fossilised brethren to the bottom of the sea as well.

Actually I don't remember this. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear. The flood was caused by rain of 40 days and 40 nights, correct? I don't remember anything about it washing away the top stratas of rock. It just doesn't seem like enough water to accomplish this.

Does the Bible say that the top layers of strata were washed away? If not, there are no reliable scientific or theological sources indicating that this happened, so why believe it?

 

[october]

The flood was caused by rain of 40 days and 40 nights, correct? I don't remember anything about it washing away the top stratas of rock. It just doesn't seem like enough water to accomplish this.

If you look in the account of the Flood in Genesis, you'll see that it says "the fountains of the great deep." There was likely a very large amount of water underground that came up and added to the rainwater. Also keep in mind that the story of creation talked about a firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. It was called sky. What this means is that there was a water canopy above the atmosphere, and whether it was liquid or vapor I am not sure, but it made the climate almost tropical over the whole face of the earth, and protected people from more of the harmful UV rays and cosmic radiation. This is why people lived for centuries in the Bible. And look at the Bible and the fact that right after the flood, lifespans dropped dramatically to nearly where they are today, about 70-100 years being the average. It is safe to say that some atmospheric effect or change in the earth's climate caused this. Anyway, between the rain from this immense amount of atmospheric moisture and the underground water, it seems more than enough to do the job.

-october-

 

[Knowltok]

Did it perhaps mention where all of this water went? Also, does it say anything about the upper strata of rock being washed away? Is this merely conjecture based upon a need to explain why it isn't there?

Another question, when was this flood supposed to have happened?

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

The Bible makes no claims about the Earth's position in the universe, therefore, I would have shrugged, said 'Whatever, that's nice.' and continued on with my life.

Hey, FL2? What about this passage I snagged from BigBirdZ28 in your other thread on 'The Bible':

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. " Psalm 104:5

I'd say there's a pretty good chance that this passage was used to refute Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe and Galileo.

I'd also say the passage is wrong.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by knowltok3


Actually I don't remember this. Perhaps you could be a bit more clear. The flood was caused by rain of 40 days and 40 nights, correct? I don't remember anything about it washing away the top stratas of rock. It just doesn't seem like enough water to accomplish this.

Does the Bible say that the top layers of strata were washed away? If not, there are no reliable scientific or theological sources indicating that this happened, so why believe it?

So, you don't think that water in sufficient amount to cover Mt Everest to a depth of about twenty fathoms would have enough turbulence to scour some topsoil?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason so many mammoths are found half-buried in mud at the Arctic circle might be because they were washed in that direction by the Flood? And then deposited on the shoreline by either the run-off or the tide? And half-buried by those very same forces? Gosh, that almost makes sense, in a perfectly logical way... Still, it involves God, so we'll have to invent another way......whether or not it's even vaguely scientific when we're done, if it doesn't involve God, it'll have to be true.

(S)cience.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

So, you don't think that water in sufficient amount to cover Mt Everest to a depth of about twenty fathoms would have enough turbulence to scour some topsoil?

Did it ever occur to anyone that the reason so many mammoths are found half-buried in mud at the Arctic circle might be because they were washed in that direction by the Flood? And then deposited on the shoreline by either the run-off or the tide? And half-buried by those very same forces? Gosh, that almost makes sense, in a perfectly logical way... Still, it involves God, so we'll have to invent another way......whether or not it's even vaguely scientific when we're done, if it doesn't involve God, it'll have to be true.

(S)cience.

Nope. Doesn't make sense to me, FL2. Not at all.

I think you're trying far too hard to get fact and events to mesh with what you BELIEVE.

(G)od