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.
Debunking Evolution
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