Debunking Evolution

There's actually more evidence in the fossil record that supports Noah's flood than there is evidence that supports evolution. Darwinian evolution, a change of kind, is not found in the fossil record anywhere. If it were, there'd be tons of transitional fossils, but we have yet to find any that are without a doubt a link between two kinds (say, fish into lizards for example).

Waste of time tbh. Keep to what your catechesis taught you. Agreeing or disagreeing with scientists is not a matter of salvation, keeping to the faith you have been transmitted is.

I agree with you, but now this thread is going to turn into a flame war. A fair warning, I’ve seen rule 2 ignored by the mods when words like “filth” have been directed at me for arguing in favor of a more literal interpretation of Genesis.

Epigenetics and Primate/human """""convergent evolution"""""

Vox Day has a few posts and videos on this topic as well. Evolution by natural selection literally doesn't exist.

Kent Hovind made a career of debunking evolution and proving why it's the worst "theory" out there, you should watch some of his stuff, he has a Youtube channel in which he takes questions and gives explanations.

I think evolution is probably a real thing. I don't see how it disproves God or Scripture at all. That said, I dislike how some "pro-evolution" Christians will fight tooth and nail to defend the concept like it's a holy dogma or something. It isn't. It's just one possible explanation for how God's Word shaped the world we live in today.

Evolution teaches that there was created order…out of pure chaos, by chance.
No he did not. Evolution describes that human came out of an ape in a purely materialistic sense. The theoey of evolution will lack any transcendental points, such as creation of soul.

It is just a theory, it will get debunked eventually. Meanwhile trust what scripture says and stride with disdain through the waves of "evolutionism". It is a myth that will pass

Avoid Hovind, he’s a meme.

Can you give a reason other than an argument ad hominem?

It is pretty much against the Bible. This requires that God created all life out of suffering and death, cancer, birth defects, sexually transmitted diseases and all sorts of other disgustingness, which we were told entered into the world through sin. This means that God retroactively used the sin of man that happened billions of years afterwards in order to create all of his creation. If man didn't sin, God would have never created things this way, since it requires death and disease which are all a subject of death.

There is a perfect parallel between Jesus' first miracle, which is turning water into wine, and the creation in Genesis. 6 jars of water for the 6 days of creation, spirit hovering over the water, God creating something that seems old (wine seems aged) but is new.

If Jesus were to say, Tree appear, a Tree would appear. Would you then cut down this tree and look at its rings and say AHA! It wasn't created, Jesus clearly planted this tree and waited for 125 years! Clearly not. Jesus created fish out of nowhere, and so on. God creates ex-nihilo.

Also evolution requires to to believe that Adam's parents were literal animals, and that Adam and Eve's children had sex with animals. Did Adam honor his mother and father? Or did he treat them like pets. Did he have Dominion over his mother, since she was just an animal? None of it makes sense.

He uses an awful lot of questionable evidence, like the Acamboro figures.

I'd also like to point out a great resource on literal creationism.
kabane52.tumblr.com
inb4 >tumblr

Tell me this, does God just decide he wants whales to breath air and not water just for willy nillies? Or has God created a system wherein the ancestors of whales breathed air and they still do to this day?
I don’t believe in the God of willy nillies. When will you grasp spiritual things?
Genesis is Sprit and it is Truth.

i don't see the point in debunking or proving anything, if you believe in evolution good, if you don't good, that's why God gave us free will to our choosing. as Christians you need to learn about science and the way it works with the world. knowledge is the key to wisdom and wisdom opens doors to other places. if your beliefs are strong it wont change your heart. so learn it .you aren't better than evolutionist, and vise versa. we live in this world as we all are human and have our ideals. if people don't want to listen its their choice, don't shove it in someones face or force your ideals. that's how you make enemies.

we only know how creation came to be from what we read in genesis.
God tells Adam "the day you eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, you will die" and in the same book, we hear that Adam lived for 900 years.
this in itself should debunk the idea that Genesis should be taken literally.
ultimately, don't worry about it. live by what Jesus taught us.

You could be right on that, you make a good case. Now this is just a theory, but God could have made more humans other than Adam and Eve (well He had to or humanity wouldn’t exist at all) but he made them into Neanderthals, and then another type of human, and so forth. Idk it’s just a theory and I don’t think that it necessarily contradicts the Bible more of the general interpretation of it, and it does support what science seems to say.

Why would God have to have additional humans? Oh also another thing is that if you're Catholic or anyone who believes in original sin, then you have to believe that Adam and Eve were immaculate conceptions, that they were conceived without original sin.

I mean, you are trying to tell me the all powerful and mighty God creates his masterpiece, the Human being, being born out of an animal? So Adam was sucking on the breasts of an animal? Rampant bestiality since day 1? I mean incest is bad (between siblings) mostly because of genetic defects - but the whole idea about sin is that it causes genetic degradation. Birth defects and all these things started to happen because of sin. That's why Adam and the rest lived way longer as well. The more sin, the shorter people lived, their bodies didn't hold up as long, their DNA degraded. You know technically there is no reason why we can't live forever, our cells could just keep replenishing - just like certain animals that can potentially live forever (if they aren't killed).

God creates beauty and so called evolution is the absolute grossest way to ever do something really. God should start up the world like a person starting up a VM. Or coding it. Create it, boom, not like running a random number generator and like waiting for it to produce a working program. Evolution is a masonic satanic scam, in my opinion. Not to mention the Bible from page 1 becomes the most misleading and idiotic book ever to be honest. God writes a book knowing that for 95% of the Churches life, we are going to think he really meant 6 days (or shorter, St. Augustine was an extreme YEC holding it to be like instanteously like booting up a VM, and this is due to a bad latin translation he was using). He says sin entered into the world and now we are cursed for this and that… but nah he didn't really mean that either. He says that he gave dominion over animals to Adam, but yeah Adam and Eve's parents were animals, and probably their sons and daughters in laws were all animals. Did they like put leashes on them and take them out for walks? And then yeah oh those ages in the Bible, yeah… those are just made up, no one really knows what they mean, and no one will ever know what they mean, but one thing we know is that they aren't actually ages. Because that isn't believable. But you know what is believable? Parting the Red Sea, talking donkeys, people walking on water, bringing people back to life. Yeah we should believe those things, but not someone living long, cause, that's too unbelievable and goes against science.

Oh wait, also now Noah didn't exist and there was no flood. There's no (((archaeological))) evidence for even a local flood. The local flood idea makes no sense anyways. If it's a local flood, just literally move to Egypt or somewhere instead of building a Boat for a whole year, you can easily move. And yeah God makes a promise with Noah never to have a local flood again? Except.. there have been many extremely severe local floods and Tsunamis - was God just lying? Oh well we don't know, gotta follow (((science))). Oh and now (((historians))) tell us that Abraham wasn't a real person or Moses either, and that the Jews were never in Egypt. Oh well yeah Moses is just a metaphor. Oh Jesus and Peter et. al claimed to have seen Moses? That was just metaphorical once again.

My point being is that if you actually follow through with these peoples theories nothing makes sense. They are so into this world and are so blind to (((what's going on))) that they just desperately say uh yeah there is no conflict we are totally on board with (((science))). They don't realize that all these so called fields are a total sham now. Jesus said if you do not believe the words of Moses (which is Genesis) how will you believe His words?

Faith is above reason and guides us to the truth. Only a few are saved. I'm not saying it definitively but I think people with true faith are more likely to believe Creationism. Lots of other people believe (((science))) first. That is DOGMA for them.

We always say that the old testament is revealed in the new and the new is concealed in the old. Tell me what is the parallel of Jesus' first miracle then? It's literally creation, and Wine, it was perfectly aged wine.

When I heard that personally that's what set it all off for me. I always was like I guess an evolutionist, I was sold the lie that there is no conflict, but I never really thought about it much, and always thought it was weird. After that set it off in my head it made me realize that evolution makes no sense.

Attached: christchan-deus-vult.png (1000x750, 753.82K)

Oh also I believe YEC (not like hard believe but I think it's more likely) mostly because I think we are entering end times - I think we are seeing the great apostasy ( I mean c'mon it's clear most have left the faith, either in reality or they are just in name only, this is a massive dropoff compared to earlier). We are killing babies on an industrial scale that is nowhere near what the Aztecs or Pagans or Romans did, and there's no sign of it stopping, it's ramping up, and few other signs.

This might be strange, but for example, we had civilization for like 3000-4000 years or so at least. Since the vinyl record, which was pretty recently, we went to CDs, and that's it - thats the maximum technology that we can use for listening to music. That's all our ears can hear. There's no where left to go. We're basically at that point with TV - actually we were pretty good even in the 30s and so, but I mean we are fast approaching the limits of our senses. Sure there is VR and stuff but there is basically no where to go for audio. I know this is a big tangent but there are loads of signs to me that we're reaching the end of what really can be done. We have technology for the first time that can actually wipe out all life on earth very easily, we never had stuff like that before. The internet and travel has allowed the Gospel to be preached to all over the world. I don't think there is that much left to do. You know TV shows only go that far. So yeah anyways, if YEC by going by the Bible is right, we're around, that's right, 6000 years. Perfect mirror of creation. 1 day is a thousand years to God. God uses numbers and loves beauty in it. It all makes sense that way.

God creates the world like an author writes a book. You think this guy is gonna write like 200,000 pages of total nonsense and filler or like almost like nothing going and then boom all of a sudden things happen for like 5 pages?

In comparison to eternity, if the world lasted for 200,000 years or 6000 years or 60 billion years it's all the same. They are all nothing compared to infinity. In such a short period of time we have already maxed out many things that can be done. Music is limited, there aren't really any new great chord progressions that haven't been discovered. If you want to be "super innovative" it's all trash atonal garbage noise, it's not music anymore. But if you look at music history, there were throughout the ages many chord progressions and harmony and stuff that had never been reached - actually the pinnacle of this was in Europe - most other cultures music was extremely basic and monophonic and never reached the height of harmony as it did in Europe. But the issue is we're also basically maxed out on that. Many signs point to us being at the end.

So yeah it makes sense for God to make his story beautiful and concise, no filler, no nonsense, no idiotic bang your head against the wall type creation, beautiful, sweet, to the point. Oh another thing that made me realize that YEC is far more likely. The resurrection is a historical event that we have to believe in, and we believe in it because of testimony. Can you imagine if God expects us to believe in an event we heard happened 2,600,450 years ago? Like people will be like yes, 2 million years ago our savior came and died… like what… I mean it just doesn't make any sense. You want people to believe in a specific event 2 million years later? We can't even phathom that, and no one in their right mind would think that information can be extremely reliable 2 million years into the future. 2000 years it's already a bit dicey at times. So clearly it stands to reason humanity will end something way before that. But does it make sense for the world (and humans) to be around for like billions of years and humans for hundreds of thousands of years, and then 2 thousands years and then bang we're done? Christ game just for that short period as a proportion? Doesn't make sense. The Church Fathers said there are 6 ages of the world, like one is from Adam to Noah and so and this is the final age. They are sort of proportional, not always 1 thousand but nowhere near like saying 2-6 million years ago (That's what science says) and like a couple thousand at best after Christ.

Anyways just felt like ranting, feel free to disregard :)

Attached: stares-in-latin.png (1440x1080, 1.3M)

God created evil lol. Do you somehow think God DIDNT design the whole world? PHYSICAL death included?

Are you a protestant (seriously asking). God did not create evil, you cannot create evil.

Isaiah 45:7
What, are you implying that God didn't know Lucifer would rebel? That God didn't know he would be creating evil?
I believe God is the creator of all things. I've come to terms with it.

No it's not. Genesis says that the birds were flying in the open firmament because the firmament is the atmosphere. It is not a metal sheet. You can't fly in a metal sheet. The foundations of the earth are in the center, obviously.

Job 26:7
He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

In Exodus 20:11 we are told this all happened in six literal days, as the sabbath day is a day. Also Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female. How is that evolution of the species?

Stop me from going and doing it right now.

God is the Creator, but what you're saying is that God is the author of sin, which is false. Actually he is the one keeping us away from that and only by not acting and protecting will we be allowed to fall. Why? Because by him all things consist.

Zechariah 11:9
Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

James 1:17-18
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

1 John 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Job 37, also look up the meaning of firmament, and in the scriptures the Hebrew words for the same, and their connotation. Then read Second Temple literature, and the hymn of the three youths in Daniel, and you'll see what I mean when I say irrespective of what it is, the Hebrews did not think of the firmament as an atmosphere, and the foundations of the earth weren't inside of it to them. What you're doing is forcing a modern perspective onto ancient text, when you know good and well no ancient cosmology matches yours, even of the some who thought the earth was round (not hebrews).

By him all things consist. Yes, we're certainly in agreement. I just don't accept the philosophical premise that if God allows/made evil, he must therefore be evil.
Remember, where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. Without evil, there is no good.

Do you agree about Exodus 20:11.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (320x240, 27.2K)

Good post except that Adam and Eve were not conceived or born.

In six days God made all things.

Also food for thought: a thousand years is like a day to God. God is spirit and he is truth.

irreducible complexity

Science is a method, yes, but many people treat it as an entity through the use of a definite article before it. Anyway, nowadays science is used as an ideology by scientificists. They defend darwinism because it supports their atheism. I live in a scientific enviroment and everything in it revolves around ideologies.

So you don't agree with Exodus 20:11. Ok then. You could've just said so.

DR. EMJ talk about it extensively.

...

...

...

You have many hours of EMJ now to debunk Evolution.

Do you think bread and wine literally become Jesus?
It’s not a matter of physical or spiritual; one or the other.
I am a Creationist, and I believe in Intelligent Design. I just don’t subscribe to the anti-common-sense doctrines most creationists subscribe to, which, can be theologically refuted anyways.

Just curious, what is your education background?
I can't believe anyone who was able to graduate thinks the earth was created in 6 days and that we all come from Adam and Eve.
Regardless, what's so hard to understand with:

Also, is it common among americans to be creationist?
I live in Europe and I've never in my life met one.

I live in Europe. Darwinism is stupid and evolution is stupid. See the videos I linked above to disabuse yourself from this atheist heresy.

Can't you summarize some arguments here?

* Five videos.
I can summarize but you would not understand immediately and you will ask questions.
Just watch one video per day and you'll see the incoherence of Darwinism and evolution.

Mutations and survival of the fittest can certainly explain adaptations within a species, I don't disagree at all with that. But darwinian evolution is something different, it revolves around something known as a change of kind. This would be like a bacterium evolving into a fish, evolving into a lizard, then a mammal, then eventually humans. There's not really any transitional fossils in the fossil record yet that would show this slow progression over the millions of years it supposedly took to go from fish to people.
A lot of people always say "well how did Noah get 2 of each animal on a boat", and they don't realize that the Bible only tells us he got 2 of each kind on the ark (which was massive by the way). So that's 2 of the canine kind, 2 of the feline kind, 2 of the bovine kind, 2 of the equine kind, etc. and they could have very easily been young animals that weren't fully grown yet. So all that Noah needed was 2 of every kind of animal, and adaptation is what caused us to have multiple species within each kind, but there is no fosisl evidence for a change in kind that would point to darwinian evolution.

According to evolution or theistic evolutionists then yes they were conceived and born.

The flood is an extremely stupid story if it wasn't a global flood that actually killed all human life. I think the only actual approach according to modern archaeology is that the flood didn't happen. Talking about liberals. I heard people think it's permitted to take that as an allegory as well. If Adam and Eve being literal people weren't dogma, I guarantee you majority of Catholics would say they were just metaphors too and celebrate how scientific they are.

That is completely wrong. We do know how species evolved and differentiated from each other, and there are fossil evidences for it.
Who decided that these were "kinds"? Is it in the Bible? Adaptation can cause species to evolve, but only to some extent, only within a """"kind"""? Why? It doesn't make sense.

I've dealt with anons like you before you know. You hide behind hours of youtube videos, because you're not smart enough to make an actual argument here. If I wanted to research on the subject I would do it, but the purpose of a board like this is to talk with anons and debate. You can keep dodging the subject if you like but you're not convincing anyone.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1024x875, 452.99K)

I refer to christian scholars who have debunked Darwinism and evolution in a way that I couldn't do. The truth is there, you can watch the videos or stay in your evolutionist heresy.

Nothing against you but day-age theory does extreme violence to the clear passage in Exodus 20:11. If you want to say those weren't cosmological days in the same way that a sabbath day is a cosmological day then there's nothing stopping you from redefining all words at random to fit your personal interpretation. It is to say that the words given here are outright false.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

You mean televangelists and junk like that? Flood geologists? Of course you shouldn't subscribe to that. They're doing tremendous damage to sincere believers by rejecting ruin-reconstruction.

Indeed. I also can't believe anyone thinks Jesus rose from the dead. I mean come on, that's so unscientific. Get an education.

If you don't understand your own arguments, you shouldn't be making them.

Attached: db7.jpg (600x488, 45.62K)

Nobody can sanely call themselves Christian and believe in evolution. They are LARPing fedoras that go to church for the social benefits and in hopes to get a gf. A bunch of faggots that need to be weeded out and silenced.

Glad to know that the Ecumenical Councils have defined that evolution is a lie.

dude, screw you. there's an honest question about the specifics of creation, something nobody completely understands, and you're going to call his faith into question?
screw you.

Not everyone is a Catholic that doubts obvious clear words in the Bible, and needs a heretical "father" to tell them what to believe.

Jesus said "call no man father" as in God the Father, silly turboprot.

Actually in Matthew 23:9 he says call no man YOUR father. Quote the Bible right.

"Your" is a plural form and refers to the crowd being spoken to. So to say that someone (who isn't God) has the title of father, that the crowd must address as such, is in violation.

It has nothing to do with the relationship of father between certain people. It has to do with the title being given to a specific person above all others. Which the self-proclaimed pope and others are in violation of. Glad you finally understand this.

Ah, glad to see that all the earliest Christians and apostles were wrong until pastor Jim created actual Christianity

But thats just, like, your personal interpretation, man. Everyone knows it wasn't REAL Christianity until Pastor Jimantha and her lesbian lovers started preaching it.

Attached: webRNS-LESBIAN-PASTORSh-030217.jpg (800x600, 118.55K)

No, you're both wrong though and you follow a revisionist history as well as teaching people to violate scripture.

I'm not a day-age theorist. God is timeless. Genesis 1 illustrates the timelessness of God. Surely you would agree things are not in "literal" or "physical" order as they are created?
There cannot be literal light before light-giving objects are created. But God is light. See how it's not necessarily "purely" literal?

To explain what I mean…
God LITERALLY CREATED and INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED everything in existence supernaturally, yet not six literal days, just like bread and wine is not literally Jesus.

There was a LITERAL Adam and Eve (and tree of life and tree of knowledge of good and evil), yet this does not preclude non-human ancestors. The Jews were the literal seed of Abraham, but not spiritually. Can it not be said we are literal seed of certain creatures, but not the spiritual seed? Did the physical offspring of Hagar and Abraham inherit any spiritual blessings? Physical descent is not always important to God.

There was a a LITERAL Noah and World Flood, with new climatalogical evidence of a worldwide flood roughly 14,000 years ago. This, however, does not mean there was a flood which covered Mount Everest. NOR was there just a "local" flood. It was truly worldwide.

And so on and so forth is the Word of God SPIRIT and TRUTH.

didnt know him. thanks

Nah, that's not the truth I'm talking about.

If you just keep on denying Exodus 20:11 then we'll all stay over here with the one truth, in agreement with it instead of you.

I seriously have no idea what you're talking about or referring to now.
Congrats on reading Galatians 3 and 4, but this has nothing to do with denying the statements of Genesis chapter 1.
You sound identical to one in every single way.

I feel bad for people who feel trapped between day-age and flood geology theories. This is what it's driven you to and it ain't a pretty sight.

Catholics make a big deal about Jesus saying you must eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved.
Have you really never heard of that?

Oh you mean John 6? There was no table, bread or wine there. The Lord's Supper was about seven chapters later.

In John 6, Jesus was speaking bluntly, flatly. The same way Exodus 20:11 is spoken.
That is all I'm trying to say.
I think it is a mistake to read the Bible as "purely" literal. I think, and with other Biblical examples of metaphor, that Genesis 1 is an "Impure" metaphor.
This takes big brains here… but just try to understand that not everything true has to be literal.

Yeah, but what does John 6 have to do with the Lord's supper? You mentioned bread and wine but that's not mentioned there. Those are two separate passages of scripture.

So far you don't have any real examples. Can you bring an example? Until then I don't really know what you're talking about.

Okay, do you think people have to literally eat Jesus' flesh and literally drink his blood to be saved?

If we're going by John 6:53 then yes absolutely. And you have to remember what the rest of the passage says to clarify this, for instance reading the next ten verses where he explains this to his disciples. The bottom line is according to John 6:63 his flesh is literally his words.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. — John 6:63

Its similar to how in Galatians 3 and 4 we learn how the relationship via the spirit is more literally real than via the flesh. John 1:12-13. But of course the Jews being carnal rejected this. Any questions about the truth of John 6?

When will this meme die already? The protestant reformation was just that, a reform of the faith, a return to the truth. They didn't come along with completely new doctrine but reintroduced the original doctrine of the Bible.

Actually they have.

COUNCIL OF TRENT

Please. Read a book on evolution like 'Why Evolution is True' or even 'The Blind Watchmaker' It's basic pop science that anyone can grasp.

Could you explain now Noah's Ark is a credible story at all then? What was the point of the Ark if it was just a local flood? Why did God promise never to flood the earth again, if it was just a local flood, and many local floods and Typhoons/Tsunamis and terrible things have happened since? Why didn't Noah just travel to Egypt or somewhere else instead of building a boat for a year. What's your explanation for Noah's Ark then - it's totally fiction and an allegory only?

The tragedy of the flood was God killing every person besides Noah and his family, which is still compatible with a local flood view.
Not that this guy is taking such a position, he's rejecting the flood as an event at all.

Still doesn't make any sense as to why Noah had to build such a big Ark and get animals, when he could have easily just travelled somewhere else. In addition there have been several massive floods since then, so God's promise doesn't seem to make sense. Also I don't believe that there is even good archaeological to suggest a local flood - anywhere like what is described in the Bible. DNA evidence also doesn't seem to line up with everyone descending first from only two people, and then again from one family.

I do find it funny when people idolize Darwin. Even when you accept the general idea of evolution, Darwin's specific theory of evolution - that every change is beneficial in it's own generation - is flat out wrong.

Metropolitan Isaiah of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America (of which I am not a member) has some interesting thoughts on this:

I don't think this is meant to be a dogmatic theological stance and I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but your post made me think of it. I found it thought-provoking so I thought maybe you'd find it interesting as well.

God bless you friend.

I'm not him but there's a number of things here. First of all, Noah was obedient to God and there's no reason to think he knew what was going to happen exactly but he definitely did what God told him to despite that.

Secondly, it's possible this flood was on a scale where travelling elsewhere would not have been possible if he even did this which I don't believe he would have. Additionally there has never since been a flood that wiped out all humanity (except them), which is the precise wording found in the Bible.

There's no archaeological evidence at all that there was such a flood like that - in fact all evidence points to the contrary. There were humans on Africa during this time, they couldn't have been killed by a local flood.
The point is that the story is illogical. It makes sense if the total world was flooded, but not some 'local flood'.

If you care about exact wording, well God says "everything that is on the earth shall die." - but that wasn't true apparently. Also

The Tradition says the story is a broad metaphor, looking at God's exact wording isn't exactly profitable in the sense you are looking at it, since God did not slay every living creature; many were in the Ark per His own instructions.

Agreed.

No, it has not. St. Augustine is a notable dissenter, debating that the sense of a day may have referred to the Creation as in the sense of stages, seeing as day and night were created during one of the Days of Creation.

And no, the Church has never actually infallibly declared when the Earth was created, I'd like you to substantiate on this, if you can.

Or, He was not speaking in a manner that was meant to be literal, and moreover, the Scriptures weren't really meant to be read outloud to everyone without the instruction of a Rabbi or a Priest for most of the history of the Scriptures; remember, the printing press was not extant until the 16th century, and the idea of people being able to own and privately read scripture, especially without the consent of any Church or Synagogue authority isn't really that big of a deal. There are instances of secular authority being able to have their own copies, however, but even the Eunuch in the New Testament admitted he could not understand it without a teacher.

A global flood not fitting into the 6,000 year Creationist claim is an issue for Creationists, if the scriptures do not actually give a specific time-span of Earth like St. Augustine pointed out, then this isn't so much of a glaring scientific issue.

An exception to the rule, I mean.

Close, but no cigar. Again, the issue of a global or local flood is an issue for creationists, if scripture was not meant to actually have a specific chronology to it, then it could all be safely tucked away into pre-history.

It's not a celebration of how "scientific" we are, it's a celebration of logic.

One of the biggest things that has lured me away from evolution over the years is the way its treated as a dogma. It's not a theory, it's an irrefutable fact. Did something prove a part of it wrong? Then the researcher did something wrong. The peak of this stupidity is 100% how people get theories of behavior from evolution. People will say that dogs like to circle around before sitting because X ancestors did Y thousands of years ago! This is especially true when it comes to humans, it's ridiculous. My YouTube auto played Coach Sociopathpill while I was listening in the background (despite explicitly telling jewtube I'm not interested), and he mentioned that men kill their cheating spouses because of evolution. Men kill the bearer of their children - women who cheat and potentially carry someone else's genes if they have birthed a child - because of evolution, that's supposed to be traits that are passed down genetically. Kind of hard to do that when your kid's not your actual kid and your wife is dead. I'm aware it's some deluded boomer but I see this as absolutely commonplace everywhere and people just accept it without applying even an ounce of logic, maybe wondering if this conjecture is perhaps wild speculation based on nothing but the human imagination. I used to be one of those people. We truly are a lost generation and a lost peoples.

Micro-evolution is real, there is just too much variety in life too deny it. It's impossible that all varieties of animals were on Noah's ark, which means that the varieties developed after the flood.

That being said, I do have a few problems with accepting Macro-evolution:

#1 - Where does the information come from?
Assume for a moment that Darwin was completely right, and imagine a time where not a single life-form had eyes yet. How did it's genes know that seeing is at all possible? And where did it's genes get the information from to form the eyes?

#2 - Evolution has it's limits
Dogs are a great example of this, because they've been bred by humans like no other animal, and for various characteristics. It seems that the farther away a dog gets from the original design (the wolf) the more health/mental problems it has. Pugs are a common example of this, they often go through life with breathing and eye problems. There are various other dog breeds which go through life with major health problems.

Like what exactly?
In the scientific sense or the descended from Adam sense?

Please explain further.

It also said in Genesis 4:14 that Cain claimed to be "driven from the face of the earth", in Genesis 41:57 that all countries came to Egypt to buy supplies because there was a famine in "all lands" and in Exodus 10:15 it said that the locusts covered the face of the whole earth, and it even explains in the same verse that this means the whole land of Egypt.

It also says in Numbers 22:11 that a people which came out of Egypt "covered the face of the earth."

So in the same sense as all these, the flood must have covered the face of the whole earth and killed everything on the face of the whole earth. I don't see the contradiction except when you get into modern day flood geology.

Not really, the flood really did eliminate all the descendants of Adam, and it really did kill all the living things that were on the face of the earth, apart from those aboard.

This is pointless because God tells Noah to make an Ark with animals. First of all you start saying 'oh the exact wording is all Men' but it doesn't say that at all, then you have an issue with the wording. Why not just say that in the first place. You're advocating for mass beastiality and this is part of God's plan, for Men to have sex with animals. No theologian has ever said that God ever permitted sex with animals. Also some bizarre theory that somehow you can have sex with an animal and the offspring will be a human. When God outlawed beastiality with Moses, were those only farm animals? Are some 'Humans' from uncontacted tribes, are they actually real Men or are they animals who haven't come from Adam yet. How do we know? This becomes a totally absurd case then.
Okay are we talking past each other. I believe in the regular flood account. I can't tell what position you are holding. I'm trying to say I find it absurd to rectify 'local flood theories', evolution and the biblical account.

Granted I haven't really looked too much into the issues with Carbon dating, and the so called lack of archaeological evidence for a world wide flood.

What post? You might be referring to someone else's post. I absolutely abhor that just like you.

This is all peripheral.

Ok, I can't speak for whoever you're quoting, but I can answer this. 1 Peter 3:20 clearly says that exactly eight souls were saved, also the narrative in Genesis 9 makes it very clear that there were no other men anymore at that point.

Like I said, when Exodus 10:15 and Numbers 22:11 talk about the whole face of the earth being covered it's in the same sense. I'm comparing scripture with scripture on this point. Meanwhile, you have modern flood geologists who bring up all this weird stuff that is unrelated.

The reason I replied to you just now is because you were questioning how these things work. I showed how the exact wording is used elsewhere in scripture to further clarify the scripture's position.

You thought there was a contradiction when there wasn't. But I'm glad you gave me the chance to point this out and show more specifically why flood geologists make no sense.

Also I should say that I'm on a proxy right now, so you can't correlate other persons' posts to me if they disagree with you but have poor reasons.

I don't know what you mean by flood geologists. I believe the flood actually covered the whole earth and I do not believe evolution. I don't think there is any contradiction obviously with that and scripture. In my posts I was merely trying to show the amount of bizarre gymnastics you have to do to believe in the Bible and also believe in whatever 'geology' or 'archeology' tells you.

People who teach flood geology. They think it's the only way you can be if you believe in YEC and the Biblical account as given. So they get real arrogant if you start to ask why these surprisingly talmudic ideas they teach aren't in the Bible.

They just start accusing you of being an evolutionist out of nowhere.

Well looking back at your post
and the amount of Biblical evidence I brought in response, you didn't do a very good job at whatever you were trying to do. But that's okay as I said already.

What on earth do you believe in - I have literally no idea. At this point I don't even want to know, yikes.

Haha biblical evidence, you literally make no sense. Just because something is used in a completely different context, you think it can be applied to everything. Very very poor exegesis.
Hahahahah